Designing Spelling Instruction for Learning-Disabled Children: An Emphasis on Unit Size, Distributed Practice, and Training for Transfer

Abstract

This paper describes an intervention designed to enhance spelling achievement for learning-disabled (LD) elementary school children. A total of 39 LD children were instructed for 8 sessions over a period of 3 weeks. An experimental group ( n = 24) was taught with lessons that incorporated reduced unit size, distributed practice and review, and training for transfer, and a comparison group ( n = 15) with methods that are typically used in the teaching of spelling. While all children could spell less than 10% of the words on the pretest, the experimental group achieved 80% accuracy on spelling words taught and 75% accuracy on transfer words on a delayed posttest. This was higher than the average posttest performance of the comparison group (60% accuracy on training items and 50% accuracy on transfer items). These findings suggest that LD children can improve their spelling skills if sound remedial principles are applied consistently. The instructional sequence described in this paper can serve both as a model of effective spelling instruction and as a diagnostic, trial-remediation technique for a disabled population.

The Role of Instruction for Spelling Performance and Spelling Consciousness

“…In the past decades, research has revealed that adequate spelling performance requires formal spelling instruction (e.g., Bosman, 2004;Butyniec-Thomas & Woloshyn, 1997;Devonshire & Fluck, 2010;Faber, 2006;Gettinger, Bryant, & Fayne, 1982;Graham, 1999Graham, , 2000. Numerous studies focused on the best ways to memorize a word's spelling (e.g., Bosman, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2006;Hilte & Reitsma, 2006;Hubbert, Weber, & McLaughlin, 2000); ways to learn a spelling rule (e.g., Darch, Eaves, Crowe, Simmons, & Conniff, 2006;Hilte & Reitsma, 2011;Kemper, Verhoeven, & Bosman, 2012); and how to encourage students to apply spelling rules in a structured way (e.g., Butyniec-Thomas & Woloshyn, 1997;Paffen & Bosman, 2005).…”

Which Motoric Condition Is Most Effective for Teaching Spelling to Students With and Without Learning Disabilities?

“…The instructional procedures for this study include error analysis, modeling, and mastery for all three motor conditions. Unit size is another area of investigation related to the spelling performance of students with LD (Bryant, Drabin, & Gettinger, 1981;Gettinger, Bryant, & Fayne, 1982). Bryant et al defined unit size as the number of words taught within a single instructional period.…”

The Self-Perception of a Learning Disability and Its Relationship to Academic Self-Concept and Self-Esteem

“…This is in contrast to professionals who view a learning disability as specific in nature and circumscribed in severity (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967;Millon, 1969;Siegel, 1974). Clinicians working with students who have a learning disability emphasize the efficacy of compensatory strategies and/or corrective work through remediation (Geschwind, 1982;Gettinger, Bryant, & Fayne, 1982;Licht, 1983;Reynolds & Birch, 1977;Spano, 1981;Torgesen & Licht, 1983). If youngsters were to accept the practitioner's view of the specific, circumscribed nature of their disability, they might be less likely to form negative self-evaluations.…”