Teaching Literacy Using a Multiple-Linguistic Word-Study Spelling Approach: a Systematic Review

Volume 3, Issue 5 June 2009 EBP briefs

A scholarly forum for guiding evidence-based practices in speech-language pathology

Teaching Literacy Using a Multiple- Linguistic Word-Study Spelling Approach: A Systematic Review

Julie Wolter EBP Briefs

Editor Chad Nye University of Central Florida

Editorial Review Board Frank Bender Anita McGinty Private Practice University of Virginia Bertha Clark Judy Montgomery Middle Tennessee State University Chapman University Gayle Daly Barbara Moore-Brown Longwood University Anaheim Union High School District Donna Geffner Jamie Schwartz St. John’s University University of Central Florida Joan Kaderavek Sheila Ward University of Toledo Detroit Public Schools Cheryl Lang Detroit Public Schools

Managing Director Tina Eichstadt Pearson 5601 Green Valley Drive Bloomington, MN 55437

Cite this document as: Wolter, J. (2009). Teaching literacy using a multiple- linguistic word-study spelling approach: a systematic review. EBP Briefs, 3(5), 1–16. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. Warning: No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without the express written permission of the copyright owner. Pearson, PSI design, and PsychCorp are trademarks, in the US and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).

NCS Pearson, Inc. 5601 Green Valley Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 800.627.7271 www.PearsonClinical.com Produced in the United States of America. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D E Teaching Literacy Using a Multiple-Linguistic Word-Study Spelling Approach: A Systematic Review

Julie Wolter Utah State University

Tim is a 10-year-old, fourth-grade boy who has completed skill (Bailet, 2004) and the awareness of sounds in words a language and literacy assessment with his school’s multi- (phonological awareness), knowledge of the spelling patterns disciplinary team. Since first grade, Tim has received speech in words (orthographic knowledge), and understanding and language services for oral syntax and semantics, and special of relationships among base words and their inflectional education services for reading. Tim’s most recent assessment and derivational forms (morphological awareness) all revealed that he has deficits in semantics, reading decoding, influence spelling acquisition, reading comprehension, writing, and spelling. The speech- vocabulary, reading decoding, Phonemic awareness language pathologist (SLP) found that Tim’s phonological reading comprehension, and is an integral part of awareness skills and morphological awareness skills were writing development (Apel, literacy development below what is expected of a child his age. Specifically, Tim had Masterson, & Neissen, 2004; because it best difficulty segmenting phonemes. When he was administered Bourassa & Treiman, 2001). predicts reading and spelling achievement. a morpheme generation task in which he was given a base A developmental treatment word (e.g., explode) and was asked to use this word to fill in approach that incorporates a sentence (e.g., The loud sound was caused by the _____. spelling and nurtures these multiple linguistic factors may explosion), he was not able to generate an appropriate word be an effective way to facilitate language and literacy success derivative (e.g., explode – explosion). for children with LLD. Because word study involves the practice of analyzing Given this assessment picture, the SLP is faced with the task of and facilitating spelling, SLPs often view this as a skill determining appropriate treatment that will make the biggest outside their scope of practice. However, it can be argued impact on Tim’s academic success and of coordinating these that when spelling-based word study is used as a tool to services with the other members on the multi-disciplinary team. assess and facilitate language-specific goals, it can provide She recently heard of using multiple-linguistic word study as an assessment window to determine where linguistic a way to facilitate the language components of morphological breakdowns occur and a tool to prescriptively facilitate awareness and phonological awareness, and is interested in the linguistic underpinnings of phonemic awareness, determining whether such an approach may help Tim in his morphological awareness, and/or orthographic knowledge. phonological, morphological, semantic, and literacy success. Given the SLPs’ expanding scope of practice, which includes written language (ASHA, 2001), assessment, and Before we address Tim’s specific case, let’s take a brief treatment approaches such as spelling that may facilitate look at what is meant by a multiple-linguistic word-study language development in multiple areas of vocabulary, approach, define the underlying language principles of reading, and writing are appropriate and a welcome such an approach, and briefly summarize the research of interpretation and therapy tool. each linguistic principle in relationship to language and literacy achievement. Phonological Awareness

Multiple-Linguistic Word Study Defined Phonological awareness is the ability to recognize and store linguistic codes or phonemes and later retrieve Word study, specifically the linguistic analysis and and produce them in an appropriate manner. Phonemic focus on spelling, may provide a valuable language-based awareness is a subcategory of phonological awareness that tool for the SLP when assessing and treating children with is specific to manipulation, blending, and segmenting language-literacy deficits (LLD). Spelling is a language-based of phonemes. For example, the word cat phonemically 1 Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 EBP Briefs Volume 3, Issue 5 June 2009

segmented is /k/-/æ/-/t/. Phonemic awareness is an Evans, Williamson, & Pursoo, 2008). Additionally, this important and integral part of literacy development skill has been associated with children’s development of because it best predicts reading and spelling achievement reading-word recognition and spelling (Ehri & Saltmarsh, (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 2001). A reciprocal 1995; Share, 2004). relationship exists between phonemic awareness and literacy development: phonemic awareness strengthens Morphological Awareness literacy skills while reading and spelling strengthen skills Morphological awareness can be defined as the in phonemic awareness. An impressive body of research awareness of the morphemic structure and the ability documents the crucial role of phonemic awareness in to reflect on and manipulate that structure. Morphemes reading and spelling (e.g., Bird, Bishop, & Freeman, 1995; are the smallest units of words that carry meaning. For Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Storch & Whitehurst, example, the word cats is composed of two morphemes, the 2002). base word cat and the plural –s morpheme. Morphological Orthographic Knowledge knowledge includes a knowledge of inflections (i.e., affixes to root words that indicate grammatical information such Orthographic knowledge involves the translation as tense or number, such as help plus –ed) and derivational of sounds to letter(s), or phonemes to graphemes, which forms (i.e., changes to the base word to create a new word, requires the knowledge and use of general spelling rules which generally change the grammatical category, such as and patterns (e.g., long- and short-vowel rules). For sad to sadness). example, the vowel in the word cat is pronounced as a Morphological awareness is correlated with a short vowel and spelled with the single consonant of a, well-developed grammar system, increased vocabulary which is consistent with the short-vowel-a spelling rule. development, and high reading achievement (e.g., Carlisle Additional factors involved in orthographic processing & Nomanbhoy, 1993; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006). may include the implicit appreciation for orthotactic, or Specifically, knowledge of morphology helps children to positional, constraints on the sequences of graphemes that spell, decode, and comprehend new words (e.g., Carlisle, are used in words (e.g., ck cannot occur at the beginning 1996, 2000; Elbro & Arnback, 1996; Windsor, 2000). of an English word). Researchers believe that children use This is not surprising given that approximately 60% of new their orthographic knowledge of individual letters, letter words acquired by school-age children are morphologically sequences, and spelling patterns to recognize words visually complex (Anglin, 1993). while reading and spelling (Ehri, 1992; Share, 2004). Apel and Masterson (2001) have presented a model in which phonological knowledge is connected to Multiple-Linguistic Word-Study orthographic knowledge (i.e., sound-letter correspondence) Spelling to form images of words referred to as Mental Orthographic Representations (MORs). This is based on the work of Ehri Researchers have recognized the importance of (1980), who hypothesized that children develop MORs by phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and making connections between graphemes and corresponding morphological awareness in children’s language and phonemes as they sound out novel words. The establishment literacy development. As a result, these factors have been of these phoneme–grapheme relations results in the ability of integrated into word-study spelling instructional programs children to bond spelling (orthography) to pronunciation of and practices (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnson, words (phonology). According to Ehri, these orthographic 2004; Wasowicz, Apel, Masterson, & Whitney, 2004). images develop gradually as the child develops a more These types of instructional approaches focus on complete awareness of the alphabetic system, phoneme– applying multiple-linguistic strategies (phonologically grapheme correspondences, and consistent identification of segmenting, referring to an orthographic spelling rule, across-word patterns. or utilizing the morphological knowledge of a base Researchers have documented the importance of word) during the spelling process. For example, in an orthographic knowledge in literacy development (e.g., orthographic knowledge lesson, children may be asked Apel, Wolter, & Masterson, 2006; Cunningham, 2006; to differentiate between spellings of the long-vowel-o

pronunciation, spelled with the two-vowel orthographic linguistic word-study treatment approach. The research pattern of oa (e.g., words such as boat, goat, float) and the question for the present brief is: Does a multiple-linguistic short-vowel-o pronunciation spelled with the single-vowel word-study spelling intervention approach improve written orthographic pattern of o (e.g., words such as hot, lot, language success for school-age children with and without pot). By sorting the words according to the orthographic LLD? pattern, children create their own meaning and ultimately learn the orthographic rule. Inclusion Criteria Given the nature, scope, An initial general search in an electronic database of The oft-heard criticism and relationship between the research on a multiple-linguistic word-study instruction that “written language phonological, orthographic, revealed limited treatment research with a focus on all interventions are not and morphological dimensions linguistic areas (phonological awareness, orthographic in the SLP’s scope of of language literacy, the oft- knowledge, and morphological awareness), and thus practice” is, at the very heard criticism that “written least, questionable. the following inclusionary criteria were used as a way to language interventions are not include an adequate amount of research with a focus on the in the SLP’s scope of practice” specified research question: is at the very least questionable. • Studies were included if word-study spelling instruction Purpose was focused on one or more linguistic variables (phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, or Although a multiple-linguistic word-study spelling morphological awareness). approach is grounded in theory and research (Hall, Cunningham, & Cunningham, 1995), limited research • Given the limited available research, a decision was has been conducted to examine the effectiveness of such an made to include children with LLD, as well as typical approach on the language and literacy success of children children. with LLD. A small number of recently published studies • Case studies, single-group, or single-subject designs have specifically examined the effectiveness of multiple- in addition to the preferred quasi-experimental or linguistic spelling word-study treatment. Although findings experimental randomized control trials were included. appear positive for the use of such an approach, the value of these studies is limited because they either offer only • Only quantitative research was chosen as a way to qualitative evidence without any statistical supporting discuss statistically related findings (practical signifi evidence (Darch, Kim, Johnson, & James, 2000; Williams cance and/or statistical significance) across all research. & Hufnagel, 2005; Williams & Philips-Birdsong, 2006) or they are published in edited publications, such as books • Study outcomes needed to extend beyond spelling (Apel, Masterson, & Hart, 2004; Berninger et al., 2003; achievement and include those of other language literacy Wolter, 2005). The purpose of this brief is to provide a factors such as reading decoding, reading comprehen systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed quantitative sion, reading-word recognition, and/or writing. research that focuses on language and literacy outcomes in school-age children using a multiple-linguistic spelling • Only research was chosen that included school-aged instructional approach. Following this review is a discussion participants whose first language was English. of how these review results would be applied to an evidence- • All research needed to be published in a peer-reviewed based practice (EBP) decision-making process by the school journal within the last 10 years. SLP who is providing Tim’s intervention program.

Method Article Search Formulating the Clinical Question An initial search was conducted using the Educational The first step in the systematic review process is to Resources Information Center (ERIC), Professional formulate a clinical question focusing on a multiple- Development Collection, Psychology and Behavioral

Sciences, Social Sciences, Teacher Reference Center, and sample, which would allow a clinician to adequately PsycInfo. The search terms included the keywords “spelling determine whether a client matched the description of instruction” or “word study” combined with the keywords the participant sample and/or replicate the study of “language,” “phonological awareness,” “orthographic knowledge,” or “morphological awareness.” This search • Inclusion of reliable and valid outcome measures to was followed by a similar search on the American Speech ensure the researchers consistently and accurately Language Hearing (http://www.asha.org) website, as well measured what they purported to measure as the What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ • Use of blind examiners (individuals who conduct wwc/). The search of all databases resulted in identification assessments or analyze data without knowledge of the of 2,026 citations. A hand search also was conducted in participant treatment group) which the reference lists were reviewed in relevant articles, research, and systematic reviews on spelling (Reed, 2008; • Inclusion of comparison statistics and effect sizes to Wanzek, Vaughn, Wexler, Swanson, Edmonds, & Kim, allow the researcher(s) to quantify the probability that 2006). Articles were excluded from the review if their the results were due to at least a 5% chance (p < .05) abstracts and/or titles indicated that they did not meet all of the inclusionary criteria. • Inclusion of effect sizes to interpret practical clinical Following the complete search, 56 full-text articles significance on a 0 to 1.0 plus scale. Effect sizes can were retrieved and reviewed. The content of each of these indicate little clinical significance (0.2), moderate clinical articles was skimmed and it was determined that 43 of the significance (0.5), or large clinical significance (0.8). 56 articles failed to meet one or more of the inclusionary Although researchers have yet to reliably determine criteria. The 13 remaining studies were included for the how to weight these quality judgments, we can take a present review (see Table 1). Listed studies are organized summative assessment approach in that the more quality- according to the levels of evidence from the American appraisal attributes included in a study, the more we can Speech Language Hearing Association’s (2006) standards, trust that the research was replicable, reliable, valid, and with randomized controlled trials being the highest level generalizable. of evidence. In our review for Tim, we can surmise that the Research Quality randomized controlled trials have the most quality- appraisal points and provide the most reliable and The methodological quality of the included studies generalizable of evidence, compared to the case studies was assessed and systematically appraised according to eight with the least amount of appraisal points. Although the attributes that are associated with high-quality research results from 13 case studies are applicable to Tim given the (Gillam & Gillam, 2006). (See Table 2.) These attributes participant similarities to his specific case, we need to verify helped to substantiate that the research findings were due the case study findings with results of control trials with to the experimental treatment and not some other factor(s) and without randomization that include a larger number (e.g., control group differences, random assignment to of participants with varied abilities and that control for bias groups). The following quality-appraisal attributes were through measures such as blinded evaluators. used to assess the quality of the studies retrieved and included in this review: Research Integration • Use of a comparison control group(s) or treatment With the 13 included studies in hand, the following group(s) literacy outcomes of a multiple-linguistic word-study • Random participant assignment to treatment or approach were reported. control group(s) Reading and Spelling Outcomes • Limited differences or variance between the control and treatment group(s) for a clear statistical comparison For those studies in which reading and spelling were both outcome variables, multiple-linguistic word- • Sufficient information regarding the participant study spelling treatments resulted in increased word-level

reading recognition, decoding, and/or spelling abilities spelling of morphologically based words compared to for children with and without LLD (Abbott & Berninger, control groups that received phonological awareness 1999; Apel & Masterson, 2001; Berninger et al., 1998, instruction (phoneme manipulation, blending), and 1999, 2002, 2008; Blachman et al., 1999; Kelman & in some cases, an orthographic knowledge component Apel, 2004). A commonality across the studies was the (short- versus long-vowel spelling rules; Nunes et al., inclusion of the linguistic 2003). Nunes et al. (2003) found that children receiving A commonality across factors of phonemic awareness any of the linguistically based treatments (morphological the studies was and orthographic knowledge awareness orally, morphological awareness linked to the inclusion of the in explicit word-study spelling spelling, phonological awareness orally, phonological linguistic factors of activities. Phonemic awareness awareness linked to spelling and orthographic knowledge) phonemic awareness activities linked to spellings and increased their reading and spelling abilities. Berninger et and orthographic orthographic knowledge word- al. (2008) further supported the inclusion of morphological knowledge. sorts appeared to facilitate awareness with the finding that children with dyslexia in children’s literacy development. fourth to ninth grades receiving a morphological awareness For example, phonemic segmenting activities linked to spelling treatment improved in their ability to read and orthographic spellings were found to increase the word- spell pseudowords, which indicated a generalization of level reading and/or spelling abilities in children ages spelling learning. 10, 11, and 13 with language-literacy deficits (Apel & Additionally, studies by Vadasy et al. (2005) lend Masterson, 2001; Kelman & Apel, 2004; Masterson support to the use of all three linguistic components & Crede, 1999). These case study findings were further (phonological, orthographic, and morphological) for read supported by randomized controlled studies in which ing and spelling improvement in a word-study spelling treatment comparisons were made. Berninger et al. instructional approach. In Study 1, which was conducted (1999) examined phonemic blending activities linked to with second-grade children who had low average reading orthographic knowledge and found that activities that scores, the researchers found that focused on matching phonemes to specific letters (/p/ a multiple-linguistic approach Children receiving any matched to the letter p) or letter combinations (e.g., /i/ with an additional reading of the linguistically based treatments matched to the letters ee; /sl/ matched to the letters sl) component in which children increased their reading were more effective in increasing scores for reading-word read words that reflected and spelling abilities. recognition than phonemic blending activities that focused newly learned phonological, on matching blended phonemes to whole words (e.g., orthographic, or morphological /s/-/l/-/i/-/p/ blended to /slip/ to the written word sleep) for spelling patterns significantly increased the reading skills first-grade children with reading deficits. Moreover, when of decoding, recognition, fluency, and comprehension, third-grade children with low writing scores (Berninger et al., in addition to spelling abilities. Interestingly, a subsequent 2002), and second-grade children in a different study with randomized study of second- and third-grade children who low spelling scores (Graham & Harris, 2005) were explicitly had low average reading scores resulted in strong effect taught phoneme–orthographic correspondences (e.g., dif sizes for reading decoding, recognition, and fluency only, ferent ways to spell /k/, /j/, /z/) and various orthographic without effects for spelling and reading comprehension. This rules (e.g., short- versus long-vowel rules), children in discrepancy possibly could be explained by different grade- both studies performed significantly better on spelling and level needs in Studies 1 and 2. In Study 1, only second-grade reading measures compared to control groups that did not children were included, whereas in Study 2, both second- receive linguistically based word-study spelling instruction. and third-grade children were included. Given that the The addition of a morphological awareness linguistic importance of morphological awareness in spelling accuracy component also appeared to facilitate reading and spelling surpasses that of orthographic knowledge in third grade development. Morphological awareness instruction that (Green, McCutchen, Schwiebert, Quilan, Eva-Wood, & focused on inflectional and derivational affixes, whether Juelis, 2003), possibly more morphologically based lessons presented orally only or linked to written spellings, were needed at the third-grade level to increase spelling and significantly improved seven- and eight-year-old children’s the morphologically related skill of reading comprehension.

Writing Outcomes difficulties in morphological awareness and his advanced elementary grade level, he may very likely benefit from an Linguistically based word-study spelling treatments appeared to be successful in increasing children’s writing additional morphological awareness word-study focus. In abilities (Berninger et al., addition, in order to aid in Tim’s literacy development, this Writing improved in 1998, 2002, 2008; Graham multiple-linguistic word-study instruction should include children with language opportunities to practice new linguistic strategies in a single- literary deficits & Harris, 2005; Nunes et al., word reading and written context since the evidence suggests in second grade 2003). When linguistically that school-age children’s writing and reading improves regardless of the type based instruction was linked of linguistically based to children’s writings and new when linguistically based word-study spelling instruction is instruction used. spellings were practiced in linked to written composition and reading practice. written compositions, writing improved in children with References language literacy deficits in second grade (Berninger et Abbott M. (2001, October). Effects of traditional versus al., 1998) and fourth through ninth grade (Berninger et extended word-study spelling instruction on students’ al., 2008), regardless of the type of linguistically based orthographic knowledge. Reading Online, 5(3). instruction used. Also noteworthy were studies in which Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/ writing improved following a linguistically based spelling art_index.asp?HREF=abbott/index.html treatment without a written composition component in third-grade children with low compositional writing skills Abbott, S. P., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). It’s never too (Berninger et al., 2002) and second-grade children with late to remediate: Teaching word recognition to low spelling skills (Graham & Harris, 2005). students with reading disabilities in grades 4–7. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 223–250. Implications for Tim Along with careful consideration of the EBP American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). components of research evidence, clinical expertise, Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists and Tim’s individual needs, the research in the present with respect to reading and writing in children and review lends itself toward the use of a multiple-linguistic adolescents (position statement, guidelines, technical word-study approach for Tim. A systematic review of the report and knowledge and skills required). Rockville, research indicates that a multiple-linguistic spelling word- MD: Author. study remediation component in literacy intervention may American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2004). be a useful linguistic addition that positively contributes Report of the Joint Coordinating Committee on toward young school-age children’s literacy progress. Evidence-Based Practice. Rockville, MD: Author. Specifically, the inclusion of the linguistic factors of phonemic awareness and orthographic knowledge in American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (n.d.). explicit word-study spelling activities appears to facilitate Key steps in the EBP process. Retrieved December 1, improved word-level reading decoding, recognition, and 2008 from http://www.asha.org/members/ebp/ spelling abilities in young school-age children with and assessing.htm without LLD. Additionally, morphological awareness appears to benefit literacy development in children as Anglin, J. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morpho young as second grade and as advanced as seventh grade; logical analysis. Monographs of the Society of Research however, more research needs to be conducted in this area in Child Development, 58, (10, Serial No. 238). to replicate these findings. Thus, Tim appears to be an ideal candidate for language treatment with a multiple-linguistic Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (2001). Theory-guided word-study approach that focuses on the language spelling assessment and intervention: A case study. links between phonological awareness (sounds) and Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, orthographic knowledge (spellings). Moreover, given Tim’s 32(3), 182–195.

Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Hart, P. (2004). Integration Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Brooks, of language components in spelling: Instruction A., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L., Reed, E., & Graham. that maximizes students’ learning. In E. R. Silliman, (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems: & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and Literacy Teaching functional spelling units of varying size Learning in Schools. (pp. 292–315). New York: with a multiple-connections framework. Journal of Guilford Press. Educational Psychology, 90(4), 587–605.

Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Niessen, N. L. (2004). Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Spelling assessment frameworks. In A. Stone, E. R. Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J., & Graham, Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel, (Eds.), Handbook of S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. and together: Implications for the simple view of (pp. 644–660). New York: Guilford Press. writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291. Apel, K., Wolter, J. A., & Masterson, J. J. (2006). Effects Berninger, V. W., Winn, W. D., Stock, P., Abbott, R. of phonotactic and orthotactic probabilities during D., Eschen, K., Lin, S., Garcia, N., Anderson- fast-mapping on five-year-olds’ learning to spell. Youngstrom, M., Murphy, H., Lovitt, D., Trivedi, Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 1, 21–42. P., Jones, J., Amtmann, D., & Nagy, W. (2008). Tier Bailet, L. L. (2004). Spelling instructional and 3 specialized writing instruction for students with intervention frameworks. In C. A. Stone, E. R. dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook Journal, 21, 95–129. of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 661–678). New York: Guilford Press. Bird, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Freeman, N. H. (1995). Phonological awareness and literacy development in Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson, F. children with expressive phonological impairments. (1996). Words Their Way: Word Study Learning and Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38(2), Teaching Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling. Upper 446–462. Saddle River, N.J: Merrill. Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R., & Tangel, D. M. Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson, (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phonemic F. (2000). Words their way: Word study learning and awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms: Does teaching phonics, vocabulary, and spelling (2nd ed). it make and difference? Reading and Writing: An Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill. Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–17. Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnson, Blachman, B. A., Tangel, D. M., Ball, E. W., Black, R., F. (2004). Words their way (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle & McGraw, C.K. (1999). Developing phonological River, N.J.: Merrill. and word-recognition skills: A two-year intervention Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Zook, D., Ogier, S., with low-income, inner-city children. Reading and Lemos-Britton, Z., Brooksher, R. (1999). Early Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239–273. intervention for reading disabilities: Teaching the alphabetic principle in a connectionist framework. Bourassa, D. C., & Treiman, R. (2001). Spelling Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 491–503. development and disability: The importance of linguistic factors. Language, Speech, and Hearing Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carlisle, J., Thomson, J., Hoffer, Services in Schools, 32(3), 172–181. D., Abbott, S. & Johnson, C. (2003). Effective treatment for dyslexics in grades 4 to 6: Behavioral Carlisle, J. F. (1996). An exploratory study of and brain evidence. In B. Forman (Ed.), Preventing morphological errors in children’s written stories. and treating reading disability: Bringing science to scale Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, (pp. 382–417). Timonium, MD: York Press. 61–72.

Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and Gillam, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2006). Making evidence- meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact based decisions about child language intervention in on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary the schools. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Journal, 12, 169–190. Schools, 37, 304 –315.

Carlisle, J. F., & Nomanbhoy, D. M. (1993). Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the Phonological and morphological awareness in first writing performance of young struggling writers: graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 177–195. Theoretical and programmatic research from the Center on Accelerating Student Learning. The Journal Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. of Special Education, 33(1), 19–33. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading Green, L., McCutchen, D., Schwiebert, C., Quilan, T., difficulties in kindergarten children: A research- Eva-Wood, A., & Juelis, J. (2003). Morphological based model and its clinical implementation. development in children’s writing. Journal of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Educational Psychology, 95, 752–761. 32(1), 38–50. Hall, D. P., Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. Cunningham, A. E. (2006). Accounting for children’s (1995). Multilevel spelling instruction in third grade orthographic learning while reading text: Do children classrooms. In K. A. Hinchman, D. L. Leu, & C. self-teach? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and 95, 56 –77. practice (pp.384–389). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Darch, C., Soobang, K., Johnson, S., & James, H. (2000). The strategic spelling skills of students with learning Henry, M. (1990). WORDS: Integrated Decoding and disabilities: The results of two studies. Journal of Spelling Instruction Based on Word Origin and Word Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 15–26. Structure. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Ehri, L. C. (1980). The development of orthographic Kelman, M. E., & Apel, K. (2004). Effects of a multiple images. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in linguistic and prescriptive approach to spelling spelling. London, England: Academic press. instruction: A case study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(2), 56–66. Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds.), Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent Reading acquisition. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum variable longitudinal study, Developmental Psychology, Associates. 36, 596–613. Ehri, L. C., & Saltmarsh, J. (1995). Beginning readers Masterson, J. J., Apel, K., & Wasowicz, J. (2002) SPELL: outperform older disabled readers in learning Spelling performance evaluation for language & literacy. to read words by sight. Reading and Writing: An Evanston, IL: Learning By Design. Interdisciplinary Journal, 7(3), 295–326. Masterson, J. J., & Crede, L. A. (1999). Learning to Elbro, C., & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme spell: Implications for assessment and intervention. recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209–240. 30, 243–254.

Evans, M. A., Williamson, K., & Pursoo, T. (2008). Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). The number of Preschoolers’ attention to print during shared book words in printed school English. Reading Research reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 106–129. Quarterly, 19, 304–330.

Nagy, W. E., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Wasowicz, J., Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Whitney, Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to A. (2004) SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing. literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle Evanston, IL: Learning By Design. school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, Williams, C., & Hufnagel, K. (2005). The impact of word 98, 134 –147. study instruction on kindergarten children’s journal Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning writing. Research in Teaching English, 39(3), 233–270. morphological and phonological spelling rules: An Williams, C., & Phillips-Birdsong, C. (2006). Word study intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), instruction and second-grade children’s independent 289 –307. writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(4), 427–465.

Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology Windsor, J. (2000). The role of phonological opacity in interventions and effects on reading outcomes reading achievement. Journal of Speech, Language, Learning Disabilities for students in grades K–12. and Hearing Research, 43, 50–61. Research & Practice (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 23(1), 36–49. Wolter, J. A. (2005). Summary of special interest division 1 student research grant: A multiple linguistic Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: approach to literacy remediation. Perspectives on On the time course and development onset of self- Language Learning and Education, 12(3), 22–25. teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267–298.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language Author Note and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence Julie A. Wolter, PhD, CCC-SLP, is an Assistant Professor from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Psychology, 38, 934 –947. Education at Utah State University and is a member of the Child Language Research Group at Utah State University. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., Peyton, J. A. (2006). She may be contacted at [email protected] Paraeducator-supplemented instruction in structural analysis with text reading practice for second and third graders at risk for reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 365–378.

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 EBP Briefs Volume 3, Issue 5 June 2009 continued Findings (Tx) in both treatment Children significantly groups and control curve in all growth improved outcome areas. were significant differences No found on outcome measures and group the control between been which may have Tx group as a result power due to decreased and/ sample sizes of small group Tx. or common shared curve analysis revealed Growth in word- significant increases Tx groups, for all reading level Tx resulting with the subword Tx in word in the most effective a by as measured ID scores Tx and significant interaction of time. phonological awareness Pre-Tx and orthographic knowledge success children’s predicted scores Tx. in the all Language Outcomes Spelling Writing Decoding ID Word Spelling Spelling Writing Decoding ID Word Reading comprehension (RC) Phonological (PA) Awareness Orthographic (OK) Knowledge Intensity/Duration/ Intensity/Duration/ Groups 8 sessions, 30 minutes duration, in the summer following 1st grade year, 1 session per week sessions Individual 16 sessions, 1 hour a duration, over 4-month period sessions Individual Word ID , phonological Word blending activities, matching orthographic the whole-word code to blended sounds ID and phonological Word blending activities, matching orthographic code of single/ multi-letter units to sounds Tx and subword Whole word Explicit instructionExplicit of and morphological awareness structural analysis of syllables 1990) (Henry, skills training Study Intervention/ Comparison Tx Groups: Tx Whole Word Tx Subword Combined Tx connected text read Tx groups All Treatment (Tx) Group: Treatment Group: Control Tx in received Both groups (spelling orthographic knowledge rules and phoneme–grapheme phonological correspondences), (deletion), decoding awareness (phoneme blending), and reading comprehension. Sample Sample Description 48 children 1 Grade Performed in average low decoding and/or recognition 20 children 4–7 Grades low Performed in reading average Level Ib (Randomized Control Trial) and Level IIa (Controlled Without Randomization) Evidence (ASHA) Randomization) Evidence Without (Controlled IIa and Level Trial) (Randomized Control Ib Level Design Randomized Trial Control Randomized Randomized Trial Control Study Berninger, Zook, Abbott, Lemos- Ogier, & Britton, Brooksher (1999) Abbott & Abbott Berninger (1999) Table 1. Descriptions and Outcomes of Research Studies of Research and Outcomes 1. Descriptions Table

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. Teaching Literacy Using a Multiple-Linguistic Word-Study Spelling Approach: A Systematic Reviews 11 continued = .39) (no 2 p Findings performed Tx group The significantly better than control on phonemic awareness, group measures. spelling, and reading word- receiving Children study spelling instruction with focus orthographic knowledge performed significantly better on orthographic knowledge ( η spelling measures confidence intervalreported), and their spellings reflected sophisticated orthographic more spellings. found significant differences No abilities to children’s between frequency low/high produce spellings. word Language Outcomes Spelling Decoding ID Word PA Spelling OK Intensity/Duration/ Intensity/Duration/ Groups 30-minute daily instruction for first- grade school year. Class instruction 45 minutes daily, 1 school-year. Class instruction instruction linked to spelling, code (orthographicalphabetic and decoding knowledge), program (Bear, focus word-study & Templeton, Invernizzi, 1996) Johnston, spelling Tx Traditional Intervention/ Comparison Continued longitudinal study received Tx group in which instructionphonological awareness et al., 1994) (Blachman Tx Group: Phonemic awareness Group: Control Traditional basal-reader Tx Group: Orthographic knowledge Group: Control Sample Sample Description 128 children 1 Grade Tx ( n = 66) ( n = 66) Control 16 children 3 Grade ( n = 8) Tx Group ( n = 8) Control: Design Controlled/ Randomized Not Controlled/ Randomized Not Study Blachman, Ball, Tangel, & Black, (1999) McGraw (2001) Abbott Table 1., continued Table

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. 12 EBP Briefs Volume 3, Issue 5 June 2009 continued Findings children Tx groups all For spelling significantly improved to pre- and writing abilities from post-test performance. in the spelling training Children performedonly program significantly better on a decoding receiving test than those children the spelling with compositional writing component. Other not were performance areas significantly different all intervention groups, For performed significantly children on better than controls measures. reading standardized both morphological For children Tx groups, awareness performed significantly on better than controls morphologically-based spelling although no significant measures, found between differences on morphologically-based groups measures. reading found significant differences No on orthographic groups between and reading. knowledge-spelling Language Outcomes Spelling Writing Decoding Spelling Writing Decoding ID Word Morphological (MA) Awareness OK Intensity/Duration/ Intensity/Duration/ Groups 24 sessions, 20 minutes duration, over 4 ‑ month period Class instruction 12 sessions, weekly instruction Small-group (4–8 children) Phonemic awareness and awareness Phonemic orthographic knowledge information/persuasive writing training, composing practice additional small-group No training Intervention/ Comparison Tx Groups: Only: Spelling Composition Only Writing Executive functioning, Writing and Combined Spelling Control: Handwriting, keyboard ( n = 220) Tx Groups: Awareness Morphological Alone (oral only) Training blending, Segmenting, manipulating affixes Awareness Morphological with Spelling Training segmenting, blending, with base manipulating affixes linked to spelling words Training Phonological Awareness Alone (oral only) blending, and Segmenting, manipulating phonemes with Awareness Phonological Spelling Linking phoneme segmenting, blending, and manipulating to spelling rules (orthographic knowledge) ( n = 237) Group: Control Sample Sample Description 96 children 3 Grade low Performed on average writing fluency composition 457 children 7- and 8-year-old children Design Randomized Trial Control Randomized Trial Control Study et al. Berninger (2002) Bryant, Nunes, (2003) & Olsson Table 1., continued Table

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. Teaching Literacy Using a Multiple-Linguistic Word-Study Spelling Approach: A Systematic Reviews 13 continued Findings outperformedTx group on spelling group control immediately (effect measures range = .66 to 1.05), and sizes 6-months post-Tx (effect sizes range = .70 to 1.07) outperformedTx group on writing (effect group control = .78) and decoding (effect size =.82) size 1: Study Tx group in the Children on a significantly improved composite of decoding and ( d = .86), reading recognition fluency ( d = .82), reading ( d = .75), and comprehension to spelling ( d = 1.06) compared group control 2: Study Tx group in the Children than significantly more improved on a decoding group the control composite ( d = and recognition fluency ( d = 1.09). 1.06), reading were significant differences No on reading groups found between ( d = .32), and comprehension spelling ( d = -.32). Language Outcomes Spelling Writing Decoding 1: Study Spelling Decoding ID Word fluency Reading RC 2: Study Spelling Decoding ID Word fluency Reading RC Intensity/Duration/ Intensity/Duration/ Groups 48 sessions, 20 minutes duration, 3 times a for 16 weeks week, instruction Small-group (2 students) 1: Study ( M = 42.2 hours) 30 minutes duration, 20 weeks 4 days/ week, instruction Individual 2: Study ( M = 36 hours) 30 minutes duration, 20 weeks 4 days/week, instruction Individual Math lessons Math orthographic knowledge, morphological awareness, ID linked to and word Oral spelling of sight words. which included readings of multiple-linguistic words linkages. additional tutoring No orthographic knowledge, morphological awareness, ID linked to and word Oral spelling of sight words. which included readings of multiple-linguistic words linkages. additional tutoring No Intervention/ Comparison Tx Group: Orthographic knowledge sorts activities with spelling word Control: 1: Study ( n = 10) Tx Group: Phonological awareness, ( n = 19) Control: 2: Study ( n = 11) Tx Group: Phonological awareness, ( n = 10) Control: Sample Sample Description 60 children 2 Grade average Low spelling 1: Study 31 children 2 Grade average Low scores reading 2: Study 21 children 2 ( n = 6) Grade 3 ( n = 15) Grade average Low decoding Design Randomized Trial Control 1: Study Controlled/ Randomized Not 2: Study Randomized Trial Control Study & Graham (2005) Harris Sanders, Vadasy, (2005) & Peyton Table 1., continued Table

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. 14 EBP Briefs Volume 3, Issue 5 June 2009 continued Findings 1: Study who received Children morphological awareness spelling Tx significantly the most on nonword improved who received spelling. Children spelling orthographic knowledge real significantly on Tx improved spelling and decoding. All word significantly improved Tx groups in spelling and writing. 2: Study in resulted Tx groups Both nonword significantly improved decoding, spelling, and written note-taking. found were increases Significant in spelling based on non- pretest SEMs from overlapping to post-test. to improve appeared Writing post-Tx increased given in 4 correct of words percentage of 5 writing samples. Inconsistent baselines and unknown effectiveness prevented reliability of these results. interpretation Language Outcomes 1: Study Spelling Writing Decoding 2: Study Spelling Writing Decoding Spelling Writing Intensity/Duration/ Intensity/Duration/ Groups 1: Study 14 sessions, 120 minutes duration, days week consecutive instruction Small-group 2: Study sessions 4 small group 180 minutes total instruction Small-group 12 sessions, 60-minute duration, bi-weekly. 6 weeks, sessions Individual Level III (Case Study) Evidence (ASHA) Evidence Study) III (Case Level correspondence -applied to correspondence decoding, spelling applied in writing, note taking strategies, computer-assisted writing report solving activities and blending linked to spelling corresponding sortsOrthographic rule word and focus on the mental of graphemic representation the words Intervention/ Comparison 1: Study Tx Groups: Orthographic Knowledge Tx Spelling ( n = 20) Awareness Morphological Tx Spelling ( n = 19) writing received Tx groups All composition instruction 2: Study ( n = 12) Tx Group: Language Phoneme-grapheme Tx Group: Control Nonverbal ( n = 12) Computer-based problem- Activities Awareness Phonemic Phonemic segmenting Orthographic Knowledge Activities 10:5-year-old 10:5-year-old male 5 Grade with Diagnosed learning disability Sample Sample Description 1: Study 4–6 Grades (n = 22) 7–9 Grades (n = 17) Diagnosis Dyslexia 2: Study 24 children 4–6 Grades Diagnosis Dyslexia Case Study Design Randomized Trial Control Masterson & Masterson (1999) Crede Study et al., Berninger, (2008) Table 1., continued Table

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. Teaching Literacy Using a Multiple-Linguistic Word-Study Spelling Approach: A Systematic Reviews 15 Findings found for the Large effect sizes in spelling ability pre- difference and post-test ( d = .84). in decoding increases Significant ID based on non- and word pretest SEMs from overlapping to post-test. of phonemic increases Marked and morphological awareness to post- skills pre-test awareness test. A multiple-linguistic spelling in clinically resulted approach in spelling significant increase abilities ( d = .5). decoding and ID level Word as increased skills markedly non-overlapping by measured SEM. Language Outcomes Spelling Writing Decoding ID Word MA PA Spelling Writing Decoding ID Word Intensity/Duration/ Intensity/Duration/ Groups 15 sessions, 90 minute (23 hrs duration, daily, total) instruction Individual 11 sessions, average session 60 minutes), 8 weeks over instruction Individual Phonemic segmentation with Phonemic written links to spelling Orthographic spelling rule sorts et al., 2000) (Bear word games spelling word of Continuous voicing phonemes when blending words segmentation links Phonemic to spelling Orthographic spelling rule sorts et al., 2000) (Bear word Intervention/ Comparison Activities: Awareness Phonemic Orthographic Knowledge Activities: Awareness Morphological Activities: Derivational morphology Activities Decoding Phonemic Tx Groups: Activities: Awareness Phonemic Orthographic Knowledge Activities: Sample Sample Description 13-year-old female 8 Grade Diagnosis ADD/ Language- Literacy Deficit 11-year-old female 4 Grade average Low spelling Design Case Study Case Study Study & Apel Masterson (2001) & Apel Kelman (2004) Table 1., continued Table

Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. 16 EBP Briefs Volume 3, Issue 5 June 2009 no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Practical Practical significance (effect size reported) no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Statistical Statistical significance reported

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Reliable/valid Reliable/valid outcome measures no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes Blinding of Blinding evaluators yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Participant Participant descriptions adequate no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Random assignment to group(s) Level III (Case Study) Evidence (ASHA) Evidence Study) III (Case Level yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes not not not applicable applicable applicable Group Group variance controlled no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Comparison group included Level Ib (Randomized Control Trial) and Level IIa (Controlled without Randomization) Evidence (ASHA) without Randomization) Evidence (Controlled IIa and Level Trial) (Randomized Control Ib Level Kelman & Apel (2004) & Apel Kelman Apel & Masterson (2001) & Masterson Apel Masterson & Crede & Crede Masterson (1999) Berninger et al. (2008 Berninger Vadasy et al. (2005 Vadasy Graham & Harris (2005) & Harris Graham Nunes et al. (2003) Nunes Berninger et al. (2002) Berninger Abbott (2001) Abbott Blachman et al. (1999) Blachman Berninger et al. (1999) Berninger Abbott & Berninger & Berninger Abbott (1999) Berninger et al. (1998) Berninger Study Table 2. Assessment of Methodological Study Quality, Based on Criteria (Gillam & Gillam, 2006) & Gillam, (Gillam on Criteria Based Quality, Study 2. Assessment of Methodological Table