FLINT SIMONSEN and LEE GUNTER, Eastern Washington University

written English language is that pat- Best Practices in terns simply make no sense. Many English words are not spelled like they sound or have Spelling Instruction: irregular . Given this perception regard- ing the difficulties surrounding spelling, one A Research Summary should not wonder at the numbers of children and adults who reportedly have trouble with spelling (Dixon, 1993).

Abstract: This review of the spelling instruction Despite what people may believe about the dif- literature identifies empirically-validated ficulties inherent in spelling instruction, the methodologies that effectively teach students written English language does conform to pre- to be accurate spellers. Phonemic, whole- dictable patterns, and more importantly, those word, and morphemic approaches to spelling patterns can be taught directly to students. instruction are described. The importance of Extensive research in the area of spelling (e.g., Direct Instruction components including Collins, 1983; Dixon, 1991; Graham, 1999) has sequenced lessons, cumulative review, distrib- lead to the development of evidenced-based uted practice, and systematic error correction approaches to spelling instruction (e.g., Spelling are also discussed within the context of Mastery, Spelling Through Morphographs, Write- spelling instruction. In addition, research com- Say Method, and Add-A-Word Spelling) that paring two spelling curricula, Spelling Mastery effectively teach students to spell accurately (Dixon & Engelmann, 1999) and Spelling Through Morphographs (Dixon & Engelmann, despite the complexity of the English language. 2001) are presented. Further, in their reliance on research-based principles and practices, these spelling curricu- Has the importance of teaching students to la are distinct from many other approaches to spell accurately been lost in the age of comput- teaching spelling. In particular, Spelling Mastery ers and spell-checkers? Should spelling instruc- and Spelling Through Morphographs have demon- tion be considered marginally important in strated substantial effects on the spelling schools today? The practices associated with development of children (e.g., Darch & Simpson, 1990). traditional approaches to spelling instruction suggest that schools and teachers might place This paper will summarize the research litera- less value or importance on spelling as com- ture on spelling instruction and will highlight pared to other academic content areas (e.g., the most promising practices for teaching stu- and math).

Perhaps the poor performance of students taught using these traditional spelling approach- es has left schools and teachers disenfranchised Journal of Direct Instruction, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 97–105. with the idea of teaching spelling skills directly. Address correspondence to Flint Simonsen at Further, the conventional wisdom regarding the [email protected].

Journal of Direct Instruction 97 dents to be better spellers. Three major spelling 18 articles for review. Several books, curriculum approaches will be discussed. These include the guides, and literature reviews were also phonemic, whole-word, and morphemic reviewed in preparation for this research review. approaches to spelling instruction. Features of each approach will be described as well as how each approach is used in research-validated Research Findings spelling curricula. Several other empirically-vali- dated components of these curricula will also be Phonemic Approach described. In addition, research comparing Understanding the relationship between letters Spelling Mastery and Spelling Through Morphographs and their corresponding sounds is an important to other spelling curricula will be summarized. skill for successful reading and spelling perform- ance. Treiman, Cassar, and Zukowski (1994) found that for children as young as kinder- Method garten, the letter-sounds of words play an important role in children’s spelling skills. The literature examined in this review was Further, Waters, Bruck, and Malus-Abramowitz identified through computer searches of the (1988) found that in general, children have less ERIC, PsychInfo, and Education Abstracts data- difficulty spelling words that are based on pre- bases. Major descriptors included: (a) spelling, dictable letter-sound relationships. (b) research, (c) spelling instruction, (d) evalu- ation, and (e) Spelling Mastery. Initially, over 609 Within the context of reading, letter-sound cor- articles related to spelling instruction were respondence (also known as phonemics) allows identified. This number was reduced by reading students to identify the sounds that correspond the abstracts for each of these articles and to the written symbols (letters) in printed read- selecting only those articles that included ing passages. Conversely for spelling, students research data (i.e., program descriptions and identify the written letters that correspond to position papers were excluded). Further, studies the spoken sounds. In a meta-analysis that that did not directly relate to spelling curricula reviewed 1,962 research articles on phonemic or instructional approaches were not included. awareness, the National Reading Panel (NRP) In addition to the database search, article titles reported to Congress that teaching phonemic from 12 educational or psychological journals awareness exerts “strong and significant effects” were searched from 1997 to 2001 for articles on children’s reading and spelling skills, with related to spelling instruction not identified those effects lasting well beyond the end of through the computer search. Journals searched training (National Reading Panel, 2000). Many included: (a) Annals of , (b) Child words in the English language have regular Development, (c) Education and Treatment of phonemic patterns. Predictable patterns for reg- Children, (d) Effective School Practices, (e) Focus on ular words allow students to spell these words Exceptional Children, (f) Journal of Behavioral solely on the basis of their letter-sound relation- Education, (g) Journal of Educational Research, (h) ships. For example, the word hat has three Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, (i) Journal sounds /h/, /a/, and /t/ and can be correctly of Learning Disabilities, (j) Learning Disability spelled using the three letters (h, a, and t) that Quarterly, (k) Reading Improvement, and (l) School correspond with each of those sounds. Psychology Review. An ancestral search (i.e., sur- vey of reference pages) was conducted for the Spelling curricula that use explicit instruction in articles identified through the other search the letter-sound relationship to teach high fre- strategies. Combined, these strategies produced quency regular words have demonstrated effec-

98 Summer 2001 tiveness teaching students to spell accurately. Whole-Word Approach The NRP found that systematic The phonemic approach can be used to spell a instruction boosted the spelling skills of at-risk large number of regularly spelled words (i.e., and typically developing readers as well as stu- words that are spelled just like they sound such dents from across the socio-economic spectrum, as hat and stop). Unfortunately, not all words in from low to high SES (National Reading Panel, the English language can be spelled correctly 2000). Spelling Mastery is one example of a using letter-sound correspondence. Those that spelling curriculum that explicitly teaches the cannot be spelled by applying general spelling letter-sound relationship for high frequency reg- conventions are said to be irregularly spelled ular words. Initial lessons in Spelling Mastery words. Examples of irregular words include the focus on teaching students letter-sound rela- words yacht, straight, and friend. These words tionships directly. Even after students achieve cannot be spelled correctly by sounding them mastery of phonemics, Spelling Mastery continues out. To teach irregularly spelled words, a differ- to provide opportunities to practice those skills ent instructional strategy is required. while learning more difficult content. Whole-word approaches to spelling instruction Emphasizing the importance of phonemic have both advantages and disadvantages. The awareness, Beers, Beers, and Grant (1977) rec- ommended that students have at least 1 year of primary advantage of whole-word approaches is instruction in a systematic phonics-based pro- that they work well for words that are consid- gram to develop skills related to letter-sound ered irregular. Many whole-word approaches, correspondence. Furthermore, because of the however, rely on rote memorization for all importance of phonemic knowledge for spelling, words, instead of taking advantage of phonemic they argued for postponing spelling instruction rules that can simplify the task of spelling. In until students had received a year of instruction typical whole-word spelling programs, words are in phonemics. Even curricula that do not explic- grouped together in a list based on some simi- itly teach letter-sound correspondence can larity (e.g., similar beginning sound like /wh/ or address the importance of this foundational /th/ or words belonging to a common theme like skill. Although lessons in Spelling Through words related to states or countries). Students Morphographs do not explicitly teach students are often required to memorize the words for a phonemics, the importance of those skills is test given later in the week. This heavy reliance acknowledged by requiring that students pass on memorization strategies for spelling could be an initial placement test to demonstrate mas- compared to requiring students to memorize tery of the letter-sound relationship. Students the answers to all multi-digit subtraction prob- who have not mastered phonemics need basic lems instead of teaching them the rule for bor- instruction in those skills. rowing (Dixon, 1993). In short, memorization is not the most efficient strategy for spelling Both Spelling Mastery and Spelling Through instruction of all words but can be used effec- Morphographs address the importance of teach- tively to teach irregularly spelled words. ing letter-sound relationships by integrating them into a phonemic approach to spelling Whole-word approaches to spelling instruction instruction. Rather than postponing spelling typically use either implicit or explicit learning instruction, these curricula directly assess and strategies for students to memorize word teach letter-sound relationships. This instruc- spellings. Implicit approaches to instruction rely tion will enable them to spell many high fre- heavily on the philosophy that exposure to new quency regular sound words. concepts will lead to the learning of those con-

Journal of Direct Instruction 99 cepts. Implicit approaches to spelling instruc- A second example of an explicit whole-word tion give students the information that is to be spelling program is the Write-Say method. learned (exposure) but may not provide much Using this technique, students independently guidance on how to learn the information. study their spelling words using a prescribed Weekly spelling lists and tests often use an sequence of exercises. First, a student looks at a implicit learning strategy. In this approach, the word. Then, while touching each letter of the students are provided a list of words to learn word, the student spells the word. Next, the and a date to learn them by but are not given student covers the word so it is no longer visi- specific instruction for how to learn them. By ble. The word is then written on a separate piece of paper. Finally, the student uncovers the contrast, explicit approaches to instruction fol- correctly spelled word and checks to see if he or low the philosophy that students need to be she has copied it down correctly. Kearney and guided by teachers through specific steps of Drabman (1993) used the Write-Say method instruction that lead directly to learning a skill with a small sample of students receiving spe- or concept. cial education services and found that it improved spelling accuracy by 34.9% in less Several examples of explicit whole-word spelling than seven weeks. curricula exist in the published research litera- ture. For example, the Add-A-Word spelling pro- Spelling Mastery represents a third example of an gram is an explicit, whole-word approach to explicit, whole-word approach to spelling spelling instruction (Pratt-Struthers, Struthers, instruction. For high frequency, irregular words and Williams, 1983). Using the Add-A-Word pro- that cannot be spelled by applying phonemic gram, students are given individualized spelling rules, Spelling Mastery uses an explicit whole- lists. Students study their lists daily using vari- word approach to spelling instruction. A typical ous techniques including a study, copy, cover, whole-word lesson in Spelling Mastery begins by and compare strategy. At the end of each introducing students to a sentence that con- spelling session students take a test for their tains irregular words (e.g., I thought he was spelling words. Word mastery is demonstrated through.). At first the unpredictable letters or when a student correctly spells the word for letter combinations are provided and students three consecutive days. When a word is mas- must fill in the missing letters (e.g., _ _ _ ough _ tered, it is dropped from the list and a new _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ ough). Presenting the irregular words in this way teaches the students that word is added. even irregular words have some predictable ele- ments. Gradually, the number of provided let- Explicit, whole-word approaches to spelling ters is decreased until students are able to spell have been shown to produce highly accurate all the words without visual prompts. Once the spellers. In two studies of the Add-A-Word pro- sentence is learned, variations are presented so gram, Pratt-Struthers et al. (1983) and that students can apply the spelling of irregular Struthers, Bartlamay, Bell, and McLaughlin words to various sentence contexts (e.g., She (1994) found that this program was effective for thought about her homework throughout the night.). increasing spelling accuracy. Specifically, the This explicit approach to whole-word spelling Add-A-Word program increased overall spelling instruction leads students through gradual steps accuracy (Struthers et al.) and increased the toward the ultimate goal of accurate spelling accurate spelling of journal words from a low performance. For example, McCormick and of 0% to a high of over 80% correct (Pratt- Fitzgerald (1997) demonstrated how the use of Struthers et al., 1983). Spelling Mastery could raise the spelling skills of

100 Summer 2001 6th grade students at least one year above their far fewer than the number of words in the writ- grade level norms. ten English language, and the number of princi- ples for combining morphographs is relatively The English language contains words with both small. Therefore, teaching students to spell regular and irregular spellings. Both the phone- morphographs and teaching the rules for com- mic and whole-word approaches may be bining morphographs will allow students to spell required to teach regularly or irregularly spelled a far larger set of words accurately than by words. While phonemic and whole-word teaching individual words through rote memo- approaches to spelling instruction work well for rization of weekly spelling lists. many words, some words conform to a third set of spelling conventions, and therefore are more Research has shown that good spellers have a appropriately taught using a third spelling stronger grasp of the principles for combining approach. morphographs than poor spellers. Bruck and Waters (1990) divided students into three Morphemic Approach groups based on academic skills: (a) good (good readers, good spellers), (b) mixed (good readers, A morphograph is the smallest unit of identifi- poor spellers), and (c) poor (poor readers, poor able meaning in written English. Morphographs spellers). The most significant difference include prefixes, suffixes, and bases or roots. between students in the good, mixed, and poor Following a small set of rules for combining groups was that good students showed better morphographs can create many words in the skills related to the use of morphographs. written English language. For example, the word recovered is made up of the prefix re, the base Spelling Through Morphographs provides explicit cover, and the suffix ed. Using the principles instruction in the use of morphographs. that govern the structure of words, the mor- Students are taught to spell a small set of mor- phemic approach to spelling instruction teaches phographs and then learn to combine these students the spellings for morphographs rather morphographs into multisyllabic words. This than whole words and the rules for combining first step is relatively simple and does not morphographs to spell whole words correctly. require knowledge of spelling rules. For exam- For example, using a morphemic approach, stu- ple, students might learn to spell the mor- dents would be taught that when a base ends in phographs form + al + ly, and combine them the letter e (e.g., make) and is to be combined together to spell the word formally. The next with the /ing/ suffix, the letter e is always step in the morphemic instructional approach dropped (make becomes making). requires students to form words that involve previously taught and thoroughly reviewed The morphemic approach to spelling instruction spelling rules. For instance, when a short mor- offers several advantages. First, morphographs phograph ends with a consonant–vowel–conso- are generally spelled the same across different nant (CVC) letter sequence and the next mor- words. For example, the morphograph port is phograph begins with a vowel, the final conso- spelled the same in the words porter, deport, and nant is doubled. These combination rules help important. Second, when the spelling of a mor- students avoid common spelling mistakes. phograph changes across words it does so in pre- Students who lack skills using morphographs dictable ways. The morphograph trace is spelled might have difficulty spelling the words hopping differently in the words trace and tracing, but the and hoping (adding the /ing/ suffix to the words change is governed by the rule for dropping the hop and hope). Using the rules for dropping the final e. Third, the number of morphographs is final e and for CVC consonant doubling, stu-

Journal of Direct Instruction 101 dents will consistently and accurately spell sons. Lessons within each level are sequenced these words (hop becomes hopping while hope so that students learn simple spelling strategies becomes hoping) and many others that conform (e.g., letter-sound correspondence for pre- to the same morphemic rules. This morphemic dictably spelled words) before more complex spelling approach continues, gradually increas- spelling strategies (e.g., morphemic spelling ing in difficulty with the addition of new rules) are introduced. In addition, within each spelling rules and new morphographs. Upon lesson, introduction of new content is completion of the Spelling Through Morphographs sequenced to minimize acquisition of misrules. curriculum, students are able to analyze new For example, the letters b and d are introduced words that contain morphographs by applying in separate lessons to avoid potential confusion their knowledge of multiple spelling rules. between them. With thoughtfully sequenced lessons, a spelling curriculum can be used to In summary, phonemic, whole-word, and mor- teach students to spell while minimizing phemic approaches are useful for teaching the spelling errors. wide variety of word types in the English lan- guage. Together these approaches represent a Cumulative review and distributed prac- comprehensive set of strategies for teaching tice. Review and distributed practice provides children to be accurate spellers. students the opportunity to master new skills, and more importantly, to retain those skills Direct Instruction Components across time. The age-old adage that “practice makes perfect” is supported by the research on In addition to these approaches, several other effective instruction. Practicing a newly research-validated components should be includ- acquired skill builds proficiency with the skill ed when considering effective spelling instruc- (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991; Gettinger, tion. Those components include (a) sequenced Bryant, & Fayne, 1982). Unfortunately, many lessons, (b) cumulative review and distributed spelling programs do not emphasize cumulative practice, and (c) systematic error correction. review or distributed practice. In traditional basal spelling programs students typically are Sequenced lessons. Within the context of not required to review or practice spelling any teaching academic content domains, several words for which they already have been tested. questions are relevant to the design of an effec- Due to the critical role that cumulative review tive curriculum. Is there, for example, a logical and distributed practice play in the develop- starting point for an instructional unit? Should ment of good spellers, teachers should provide some skills be taught prior to others? Can stu- opportunities for regular review and practice dent performance be improved by carefully spelling words that already have been learned ordering the presentation of instructional mate- (Collins, 1983). rials? For academic curricula based on Direct Instruction principles, the answer to these Spelling curricula that are consistent with these questions is a resounding yes (Adams & principles include Spelling Mastery, Spelling Engelmann, 1996; Gersten, Woodward, & Through Morphographs, and the Add-A-Word pro- Darch, 1986). Spelling Mastery provides one gram. For example, lessons in the Spelling example of a spelling curriculum that is careful- Through Morphographs curriculum have been ly organized around those design considerations. sequenced so that spelling words are efficiently learned and then effectively retained. New mor- Spelling Mastery consists of six instructional lev- phographs are introduced as units that are els (Levels A through F) and a total of 660 les- always spelled the same way. These newly

102 Summer 2001 learned morphographs are practiced using a vari- rection procedures in these curricula combine ety of verbal and written exercises. For example, (a) teacher demonstration (i.e., model) of cor- the morphograph press is introduced and spelled rect responding with (b) guided opportunities verbally in a group lesson. Later the students for students to respond correctly (i.e., lead), practice identifying and spelling the morpho- and (c) assessment of student knowledge (i.e., graph press in their workbooks. Once the stu- test). For example, if a student misspelled the dents have practiced spelling a morphograph in word friend, the teacher would model the cor- a variety of different activities they are asked to rect spelling. “Listen: f-r-i-e-n-d.” Next the complete application exercises requiring use of teacher would check the student to see if the the previously introduced morphograph to spell model was effective in correcting the error. a variety of words (e.g., impress, pressing, and “Your turn. Spell friend.” If a student makes a depressed). Not only does this sequence teach spelling error during this knowledge test, the progressively more difficult content but also teacher would model the correct spelling a sec- provides review and practice of previously ond time, “Listen again: f-r-i-e-n-d,” and then learned morphographs. In general, opportunities would lead the student through guided practice, to review and practice spelling skills are impor- “With me, spell friend. F-r-i-e-n-d.” The teacher tant for long term spelling success. then tests again to see if the correction was effective by asking the student to “Spell friend.” Systematic error correction. Error correction If the student correctly spells the word on this procedures provide immediate feedback that second test, the teacher backs up in the lesson students can use to improve their performance and re-teaches the part of the lesson where the (Brophy & Good, 1986; Kinder & Carnine, initial error occurred. This structured teacher 1991). Error correction procedures can include a response to errors prevents students from mak- variety of different strategies. Examples include ing repeated mistakes and provides instructional circling incorrect responses on a worksheet or feedback that helps students become more delivering a verbal cue such as, “Double-check accurate spellers. your answer.” Many curricula ignore the impor- tance of teacher corrections for student mis- Comparisons of Spelling Curricula takes, giving preference instead to allowing (even encouraging) students to discover and While several spelling programs describe learn from their mistakes. Although this discov- research-validated practices, (e.g. Add-A-Word, ery learning approach may have some intuitive Write-Say) few have been compared to other appeal, research has consistently demonstrated spelling programs. Of the few published com- that students receiving teacher-directed pro- parative research studies, most have focused on grams (that incorporate systematic error correc- Spelling Mastery and Spelling Through tion strategies) consistently outperform stu- Morphographs. A review of those comparative dents in self-directed learning programs studies follows. (Becker, 1978; Becker & Gersten, 1982). Students taught to spell using Spelling Mastery In addition to highlighting students’ mistakes, and Corrective Spelling Through Morphographs error correction can serve an instructive func- (now known as Spelling Through Morphographs) tion as well (i.e., by providing information about consistently outperformed students taught to correct responses). Spelling Mastery and Spelling spell through other spelling programs. Darch Through Morphographs address error correction and Simpson (1990) found that students who through a series of structured, teacher-directed received spelling instruction in Spelling Mastery responses to student spelling errors. Error cor- outperformed students who were taught to use

Journal of Direct Instruction 103 the strategy of “imagining themselves correctly McCormick & Fitzgerald, 1997; Vreeland, spelling words on a movie screen.” Gettinger 1982), (b) general education students in middle (1993) found that students spelled more words school (Earl et al., 1981; Hesse et al., 1983; correctly after participating in a Direct Robinson & Hesse, 1981), and (c) students Instruction spelling program (reportedly sharing with significant delays in the area of spelling several of the major components of Spelling (Maggs et al.,1981). Mastery and Spelling Through Morphographs) than students participating in an inventive spelling program (i.e., an instructional approach that encourages students to spell all words phoneti- Conclusion cally, including words with irregular spellings). While often neglected, spelling is an important Comparisons with more traditional basal academic skill for students to learn in school. spelling curricula (e.g., Earl, Wood, & Stennett, Further, spelling can be taught directly and sys- 1981) also have demonstrated significant tematically. Spelling programs that teach spelling gains for students receiving instruction spelling through phonemic, whole-word, and in Spelling Mastery or Spelling Through morphemic approaches while utilizing Direct Morphographs, with students at times doing Instruction components (e.g., systematic error more than twice as well as students receiving correction, cumulative review/distributed prac- other spelling instruction (Vreeland, 1982). tice, and sequenced lessons) are highly effective in teaching accurate spelling. Several evalua- Several other studies have demonstrated sub- stantial gains in spelling performance by com- tions of Spelling Mastery and Spelling Through paring performance both before and after Morphographs have provided compelling evi- instruction using the Spelling Mastery and Spelling dence for their substantial effects on the spelling Through Morphographs curricula (Robinson & development of children and for the importance Hesse, 1981; Sommers, 1995). For example, of the research-validated components embedded Maggs, McMillan, Patching, and Hawke (1981) within their instructional design. found that directly teaching spelling using Morphographic Spelling (Corrective Spelling Through References Morphographs was adapted from Morphographic Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Spelling) greatly enhanced spelling performance. Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Both general and special education students Educational Achievement Systems. made 15-month and 11-month gains, respective- Becker, W. C. (1978). The national evaluation of Follow ly, in spelling performance during an 8-month Through: Behavior-theory-based programs come out period. Further, substantial gains in spelling per- on top. Education and Urban Society, 10, 431–458. formance following instruction using Corrective Becker, W. C., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow-up of Spelling Through Morphographs were retained by Follow Through: The later effects of the direct students 1 year after the end of spelling instruc- instruction model on children in fifth and sixth tion (Hesse, Robinson, & Rankin, 1983). grades. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 75–92. Beers, J., Beers, C., & Grant, K. (1977). The logic In addition, research studies have demonstrated behind children’s spelling. Elementary School Journal, the advantages of spelling instruction using 77, 238–242. Spelling Mastery and Spelling Through Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior Morphographs for a variety of different students, and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), including (a) general education students in the Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 360–375). New primary grades (Burnette et al., 1999; York: Macmillan.

104 Summer 2001 Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1990). Effects of reading skill Kearney, C. A., & Drabman, R. S. (1993). The Write-Say on component spelling skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, Method for improving spelling accuracy in children 11, 425–437. with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Burnette, A., Bettis, D., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Disabilities, 26, 52–56. Martella, R. C., Tso, M., Ebey, T. L., McGlocklin, L., Hornor, S., Cooke, B. (1999). A comparison of Spelling Kinder, D., & Carnine, D. (1991). Direct Instruction: Mastery and a whole-word approach across elementary What it is and what it is becoming. Journal of grades in a Title 1 school. Effective School Practices, Behavioral Education, 1, 193–213. 18(2) 8–15. Maggs, A., McMillan, K., Patching, W., & Hawke, H. Collins, M. (1983). Teaching spelling: Current practices (1981). Accelerating spelling skills using mor- and effective instruction. Direct Instruction News, 3(1), phographs. Educational Psychology, 1, 49–56. 1, 14–15. Darch, C., & Simpson, R. G. (1990). Effectiveness of McCormick, J., & Fitzgerald, M. (1997). School-wide visual imagery versus rule-based strategies in teach- application of Direct Instruction: Spelling Mastery at ing spelling to learning disabled students. Research in Yeshiva. Effective School Practices, 16(3), 39–47. Rural Education, 7(1), 61–70. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Dixon, R. C. (1991). The application of sameness analy- Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read [Online]. sis to spelling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp- 285–291. pubskey.cfm [2000, November 10]. Dixon, R. C. (1993). The surefire way to better spelling: A revolutionary new approach to turn poor spellers into pros. Pratt-Struthers, J., Struthers, T. B., & Williams, R. L. New York: St. Martin’s Press. (1983). The effects of the Add-A-Word Spelling Dixon, R. C., & Engelmann, S. (1999). Spelling Mastery. Program on spelling accuracy during creative . Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 277–283. Dixon, R. C., & Engelmann, S. (2001). Spelling Through Robinson, J. W., & Hesse, K. D. (1981). A morphemical- Morphographs. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill. ly based spelling program’s effect on spelling skills Earl, L. M., Wood, J., & Stennett, R. G. (1981). Morphographic spelling: A pilot study of its effective- and spelling performance of seventh grade students. ness with grade six students. Special Education in Journal of Educational Research, 75, 56–62. Canada, 55(4), 23–24. Sommers, J. (1995). Seven-year overview of Direct Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruc- Instruction programs used in basic skills classes at tion: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: ADI Press. Big Piney Middle School. Effective School Practices, Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct 14(4), 29–32. Instruction: A research-based approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53, 17–31. Struthers, J. P., Bartlamay, H., Bell, S., & McLaughlin, T. Gettinger, M. (1993). Effects of invented spelling and F. (1994). An analysis of the Add-A-Word Spelling Direct Instruction on spelling performance of sec- Program and public posting across three categories of ond-grade boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, children with special needs. Reading Improvement, 31, 281–291. 28–36. Gettinger, M., Bryant, W., & Fayne, J. (1982). Designing Treiman, R., Cassar, M., & Zukowski, A. (1994). What spelling instruction for learning-disabled children: An emphasis on unit size, distributed practice and train- types of linguistic information do children use in ing for transfer. Journal for Special Education, 16, spelling? The case of flaps. Child Development, 65, 439–448. 1318–1337. Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction Vreeland, M. (1982). Corrective spelling program evalu- for students with learning disabilities: A review. ated. Direct Instruction News, 1(2), 3. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98. Waters, G. S., Bruck, M., & Malus-Abramowitz, M. Hesse, K. D., Robinson, J. W., & Rankin, R. (1983). Retention and transfer from a morphemically based (1988). The role of linguistic and visual information Direct Instruction spelling program in junior high. in spelling: A developmental study. Journal of Journal of Educational Research, 76, 276–279. Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 400–421.

Journal of Direct Instruction 105