Educational research on how best to teach spelling

[ReallyTired]

What is the most effective way to teach spelling. Anedotally look cover right check has not worked for my children. Is there a high quality spelling scheme that parents can use with their children that follow a logical progression. (Ie. systematically teaches them spelling rules)

[maizieD]

I agree that for dyslexic children and those who are not 'visual' learners, phonics is the best route for learning to read and learning spelling rules the best way to improve spelling.

Unfortunately, the same as for reading, by the time you've discovered which children are struggling ('dyslexic') and which ones are 'visual learners', unless you have been using good, systematic phonics teaching from the very start, you've b*ggered up the ones who find learning to spell very difficult.

If you have any doubts about the effectiveness of systematic, structured phonics instruction on spelling skills have a look at this longitudinal data on one of the phonics programmes which meets the DFE criteria.

www.sounds-write.co.uk/pdf-downloads.aspx

S~W research report 2009.

I worked in secondary school. All the teachers reckoned that at least 60% of their pupils couldn't spell. ( Neither could a very significant number of the teachers) That is far more bad spellers than bad readers. Compare that with the S~W figures

[mrz]

unfortunately spellcheckers can't help if you write beach when you mean beech

[tryingreallytrying]

bruffin - I don't disagree with you. I agree that for dyslexic children and those who are not 'visual' learners, phonics is the best route for learning to read and learning spelling rules the best way to improve spelling.

But it will never create children who can spell properly - because in many situations there is no 'logical' reason why you would apply one rule and not another. eg you can be taught that ea and ee often sound the same. But not always. So how do you know whether to write each or eech? or reach or reech? when you have words like beach AND beech?

At the end of the day, there is no choice in English to engaging visual memory. My dh is dyslexic, sounds out words AND CAN'T SPELL.

If anyone knows a method that worked reliably to help dyslexics spell, then I daresay they would now be very rich indeed and this thread wouldn't exist. There isn't one.

Luckily, spellcheckers/dictionaries exist - so those who can't spell on their own can find the answers elsewhere.

[bruffin]

I learnt to read largely by recognising whole words, once I'd mastered v basic phonics eg letter sounds and concept of magic e. Whilst this method is highly unfashionable now, I remain convinced that visual recognition of words is a far better way to learn to read if you value spelling skills as well.

But how do you know who are visual, because I am not a visual speller. I learnt to read very easily back in the 60s, but have a DH and DS 18 who are dyslexic and thanks to phonics they learnt to read, but they still can't spell. DS can spell by sounding the word out loud, but it doesn't always get to the paper correctly.
I spell by learning rules and breaking words down, which is I think is called "saying it wrong". I remember Wednesday as Wed nes day and February as Feb ru ary, but I never see a word in my mind, I just hear the sounds.

If all else fails, I would also recommend the electronic spell-checker.


This little bit of research is interesting computers boost boys spelling

[kesstrel]

There is also the problem of how you would identify early enoughtime those children who supposedly don't need phonics for spelling in order to provide them with something different.

[kesstrel]

sorry, that should have been "30 years".

[kesstrel]

"I'm great at spelling (sorry, modesty wouldn't be helpful here) and would disagree with whoever said it's not a visual skill. It is very much so for me, aided by the fact I have a photographic memory "-

But most people DON'T have a photographic memory, so why do you think your method will work for them? And indeed, since that was the method in practice for around 30 at least prior to 2007, we have good solid evidence that, as regards spelling, it in fact doesn't work for most people.

[tryingreallytrying]

I'm great at spelling (sorry, modesty wouldn't be helpful here) and would disagree with whoever said it's not a visual skill. It is very much so for me, aided by the fact I have a photographic memory - I can see any word once and pretty much spell it correctly thereon. Of my 3 dcs, only 1, my youngest, seems to take after me, sadly, on this. My elder two have been helped by learning common rules eg doubling consonants in verbs before -ed and - ing endings where the verb root has cvc or ccvc and the vowel is a 'short' one eg plan - canned/canning otherwise the e/ing would act like what I was taught at school to call the 'magic e', and will make the vowel a 'long' one eg ay not a. That's how you differentiate between canned and caned, or canning/caning, for example.

Sorry, not very well explained and I'm sure books cited above explain it better!

As well as the visual recall, I find that words in English do, in most cases, follow similar patterns. So if you can learn 'tongue', say, you can then handle other -ue words like vague without difficulty.

Knowing Latin also helps, as it enables you to understand that benefit is correct not benifit, as it derives from bene + fit (facere).

But I've not had to ever 'consciously' learn more than a handful of spellings, ever. Ones I do remember having to consciously learn include Wednesday, February, address, accommodation, separate and misled (well, the last one is pron not really spelling that I struggled with). Actually can't remember any others I struggled with apart from those ones!

I learnt to read largely by recognising whole words, once I'd mastered v basic phonics eg letter sounds and concept of magic e. Whilst this method is highly unfashionable now, I remain convinced that visual recognition of words is a far better way to learn to read if you value spelling skills as well. I don't know anyone who learnt to read by modern phonics methods who is a 'natural' speller. Whilst I can see that phonics is useful for eg dyslexics and those who would struggle with purely visual methods, I maintain that for most children, insistence on teaching reading through phonics is actually doing them a disservice.

[mrz]

Really tired the Sounds~Write app would be perfect for a 4 year old if you have an IPad

[maizieD]

@ checkmates

SP will be statutory from September 2014; along with teaching children in a literature rich environment (lots of reading & telling stories, poetry etc.).

SP is not a programme, it is more a set of principles. There are lots of different SP programmes which use a variety of approaches based on SP principles. Schools don't have to use a specific programme; they can knit their own if they want to, but why reinvent the wheel?

Does this bother you?

[checkmates]

Is phonics litterally compulsory in state schools or can they choose their own method?

[Mashabell]

cecilyP
visual memory is what distinguishes naturally good spellers from poor spellers.
Spot on!
For kinesthetic memory to take over you must have spelt a word correctly dozens of times.
Not just dozens but hundreds of times.
That's why teachers give children lots of exercises which go over common words again and again.

When i type now (aged 69), my fingers do the job for me. I just think about what i'm saying and watch that my fingers don't slip up.

The best way to help children to become good spellers (i.e. to memorise the 4,217 words with spelling quirks which i mentioned earlier) is to find ways of getting them to write as much as possible. Lots of practice is really all there is to it, after basic phonics.

[RosemaryandThyme]

The Ruth Miskin GET Spelling series (used in Read write Inc schools from age 7 but can be used for younger children at home) each a4 booklet covers somewhere around 20 rules, numerous examples and three pages of practice per rule. 10 mins a day. Can buy as a whole series or individually on ebay.

[CecilyP]

Yes, for 1p plus postage you couldn't go far wrong, but even I wouldn't pay 54!

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

Oh, CecilyP I cannot believe I've just clicked "Buy" on a book, with no real clue as to its innards, purely because other copies are £54....

[CecilyP]

I have absolutely no suggestions for a 4-year-old, (and I am not sure I would pre-empt any difficulties) but for a secondary age child I would recommend a book called 'Signposts to Spelling' by Joy Pollock, copies of which are available at a somewhat bizarre range of prices on Amazon. First published in 1980, it covers different spelling rules, letter patterns and spelling history with lists of useful words as examples, and does go some way to making English spelling seem less random than it might initially appear.

If all else fails, I would also recommend the electronic spell-checker.

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

RT I suspect I read your thread title in a hurry yesterday because I somehow didn't notice that you wanted "research" rather than "meandering anecdote". Apologies.

But please don't give up on your 12 year old.

In fact - get him to read to his Ds.....

[ReallyTired]

My son is twelve years old and his spelling is poor. Dd is four year old and I don't trust the school to teach her. Dd's school is officially inadequate and if anything standards are falling.

I suppose I am more interested in teaching spelling to a four year old as ds is not interested.

[CecilyP]

ReallyTired, what sort of age group are you looking for?

[CecilyP]

^Zerosome...

It only approaches anything near visual if you are askilled reader and so familiar with a word that you can visualise it correctly, and, you have that sort of mind. Most people don't bother. They sound their way through it. Or, they 'know' it so well that kinaesthetic memory takes over.^

Sounding your way through a word would be a bit hit and miss when you are talking about Engish. You could achieve phonically plausible spelling, but it is unlikely you would achieve correct spelling. Obviously, you won't be able to visualise a word if you have never read it and are therefore unfamiliar with it. But, taking basic phonic knowledge as a given, I do believe that visual memory is what distinguishes naturally good spellers from poor spellers. It is not a matter of bothering, it is just that, if you have that kind of memory, you can, as you just know which of however many phonically plausible alternatives is the correct one - there no real effort involved.

For kinesthetic memory to take over you must have spelt a word correctly dozens of times and I think it only happens with a handful of words - I know that sometimes when I go to write the boys version of my name, I end up writing my name without thinking.

[ReallyTired]

maizieD
thanks for the recommendation. I have heard of apples and pears but I was a little horrified at the price.

I have this book

www.amazon.co.uk/Superphonics-Spelling-Ruth-Miskin/dp/0340851953?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21

but there isn't enough over learning.

[columngollum]

They sound their way through it

I don't know anybody in real life who uses phonics to check their own spelling.

How many ms and cs in accommodation? Let me just sound that out, hang on...

I can hear three in there, no, two. Nope, I can hear another one!

[maizieD]

Zerosome...

It only approaches anything near visual if you are askilled reader and so familiar with a word that you can visualise it correctly, and, you have that sort of mind. Most people don't bother. They sound their way through it. Or, they 'know' it so well that kinaesthetic memory takes over.

[ekuiz]

If you want to see how much rote-learning English spelling involves, no matter what method you use, take a look at this:
englishspellingproblems.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/irregular-spellings-in-4217-common-words_7864.html ?

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

Hmmm again.....

OP While you're waiting for the English language to be officially modernised - can I suggest something else?

I'm quite surprised that maizieD doesn't think English spelling is visual.... For me (and I don't mean now when my brain cells are beating each other up and falling off buildings...) it's always been at least 90% visual familiarity (reading/writing) and 10% understanding what the word means and where it came from.

So ........

Latin.

(Don't hate me.)