In-Depth Discussion of Study Results
The results on the biweekly tests of transfer words shed light on the orthographic differences between the students’ instructional environments and word frequency. In phase I, the students were in different instructional environments and transfer words were common high- frequency words (e.g., sprint, spine, grind, road). Phase I provided a baseline of data for word frequency. Even though instruction differed, the students had past common experiences of repeated print and oral exposure to these high-frequency words. Although the difference was not significant, the extended word-study group had better phase I transfer mean scores (11.0 out of 12) than did the traditional spelling group (10.2). These results could be an indication that these average third-grade students had gained general sufficient “amalgamated” or word-specific knowledge to forego the use of their orthographic knowledge.
The phase structure of the study attempted to separate the students’ use of word-specific knowledge from their application of orthographic knowledge. In phase II, classroom instruction was the same as in phase I, but the transfer spelling words changed from high to low frequency (e.g., slur, refrain, rebuke, prone). It is unlikely that average third-graders would have a strong word-specific knowledge base with which to spell these words. That is, they would likely lack sufficient meaning opportunities and frequency experiences for automatic spelling, and would thereby be required to draw upon their orthographic knowledge for spelling. There were significant main-effect differences between the two instructional groups, favoring the extended word-study group in this low-frequency condition. Although there was a drop in scores in both groups from the high-frequency phase I words to the low-frequency phase II words, the extended word-study group was less affected by the change than the traditional spelling group. For high-frequency word spellings (phase I) there was a 0.8 point mean difference between the two groups (10.2 traditional, 11.0 extended word study), but for low-frequency spellings (phase II) the mean difference between the two groups more than doubled to 1.9 points (6.7 traditional, 8.6 extended word study).
In phase III, transfer words remained low frequency, but there was a change in instruction for the first six weeks of phase III in Teacher A’s classroom. In addition to the regular traditional spelling instruction, six 45-minute lessons about most common usage long vowel patterns were provided to the entire class. The phase II main-effect difference disappeared during phase III. The extended word-study group’s phase II to phase III transfer mean scores improved by only 0.4 (8.6 to 9.0). The traditional spelling group’s transfer mean scores improved by 1.7 (6.7 to 8.4), more than quadrupling the improvement noted for the extended word-study group.
There is an interesting pattern of improvement for the traditional group’s transfer scores. During the phase III minilessons, the traditional group’s transfer mean test scores consistently improved -- 7.5, 8.2, and 8.8, respectively, on the first three (of four) biweekly spelling tests (Table 5). When the minilessons stopped, the transfer mean score dropped to 7.6 -- almost back to the level of the first phase III transfer mean test at the beginning of minilesson instruction. Because all the students in Teacher A’s classroom received the minilesson, there was no control group with which to compare scores. Therefore, it is not possible to report with certainty that the improvement in transfer scores was the result of the minilessons or that the drop of the last transfer test score resulted from withdrawal of minilesson support. However, these results do provide questions for future study.
This study did highlight how the interplay of word frequency, orthographic knowledge, and developmental level can lead to different student response to low-frequency words. In the phase II low-frequency condition, orthographic knowledge took on greater importance in the way the students chose to spell words. The extended word-study group responses were of better orthographic quality than the traditional spelling group. For example, seven of eight students in the extended word-study group spelled the low-frequency transfer word drone correctly. In the traditional group, one of eight spelled drone correctly, with five students spelling the word as drown. An instructional goal of extended word-study instruction was to help students discover the most common position of letter combinations in words. When Teacher B taught her students that long vowels in the middle of the syllable are most commonly spelled with vowel-consonant-e, she provided her students with the information to make the “correct guess” 85 percent or more of the time (Abbott, 2000). These results suggest that teaching students the most common usage patterns within a word-study framework enabled them to produce more orthographically advanced spellings of unknown or low-frequency words.
The students in the extended word-study group were consistent in their most common usage “best guess” strategy. For example, two of the extended word-study group spelled sprain correctly, one spelled it spring, and five spelled it sprane. The students in the extended word-study group made their best guesses, using a-consonant-e, the most common spelling of long a in the middle of a syllable. In the traditional spelling group, two also spelled sprain correctly and two spelled it sprane, but the remaining four students included only one vowel in the word, failing to apply any type of long vowel orthographic structure.
In the phase III low-frequency condition there was less orthographic difference between the students’ spellings. Although the extended word-study group consistently more often chose the most common usage spelling pattern, the traditional spelling group became more consistent about use of the most common pattern as long as the students were receiving weekly lessons in the strategy.
From “Effects of Traditional Versus Extended Word Study Spelling Instruction on Students’ Orthographic Knowledge,” by Mary Abbott.
Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted October 2001
© 2001 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232