Making a Difference with Developmental Spelling: Investing in Research-Based Practice and Teachers’ Expertise Michelle Picard and Alison Meadows In order to increase students’ abilities to read and spell, our diverse, urban/suburban district outside of Washington D. C. decided to implement a division-wide literacy initiative across twenty-two elementary schools. This initiative involved a shift from traditional spelling instruction towards a developmental approach, also known as word study. Despite over 35 years of research-based support for developmental spelling instruction, classrooms continue to be dominated by ineffective spelling instruction stemming from three historical traditions: incidental instruction, rote memorization, and rule-driven instruction (Fresch, 2003, 2007; Johnston, 2001; Schlagal, 2001, 2002). Developmental spelling instruction advocates assessment-driven, differentiated small group instruction that seeks to develop knowledge of specific words and to generalize that knowledge to other words that share similar spelling patterns. Studies have indicated that the acquisition of written word knowledge, knowledge of how the spelling of words represent sound, pattern, and meaning, increases a student’s ability to read and spell (Carlisle, 2004; Ehri & Rosenthal, 2008; Ehri & Wilce, 1987; McCandliss, Beck, Sendak, & Perfetti, 2003; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek & Perney, 1995; O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995). What is Word Study? The word study approach is developmental, differentiated, active, based on conceptual development, and embedded in language arts instruction (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2008; Templeton, 2002). Word study acknowledges that the English language is a logical and predictable continuum of sound, pattern, and meaning elements with exceptions that also follow logical spelling patterns. Students’ spelling samples provide insight into their

understandings of word knowledge. Qualitative spelling analyses are used to identify students’ instructional spelling levels: Emergent, Letter Name, Within Word Pattern, Syllables and Affixes, and Derivational Relations. Rather than traditional whole group instruction, word study is taught in small groups based on students’ developmental spelling levels and common instructional needs, as identified through assessment. Typical classrooms have two to three word study groups, with each one working on different words, which focus on common features such as a vowel patterns or consonant blends. Each group meets with the teacher for a short lesson between three and five days per week. During these lessons, the students have the opportunity to analyze spelling patterns, discuss vocabulary, and apply studied features to new words through reading and writing. Word sorts, or the active categorization of words according to common features, are used to guide students toward generalizations about the way words do and do not work (Bear et al, 2008; Zutell, 1998). A weekly routine is established to give students ample opportunity to become familiar with the words and their similarities. On the first day of the word study cycle, students are given a set of small word or picture cards which are sorted into categories. For example, students studying common long and short a patterns may have words with the following patterns: ay as in play, ai as in rain, a-consonant-e as in bake and short a as in glass. Exceptions are also included in this set of word cards such as the word said. Said has a common long a pattern ai but it does not have the long a sound; therefore this word would be considered an exception or oddball. These word cards are sorted throughout the week in a variety of activities, such as speed sorting, writing sorts, word hunts, sentences, and reflecting on the ‘big idea.’

Word study is based on conceptual development and not rote memorization (Templeton, 2002). Although students incidentally ‘memorize’ some of the spellings in their work throughout the week, the emphasis is on how word features such as the ai, ay, and a-consonant-e, are commonly represented in words. In addition, students consider issues of frequency, position, and meaning. For example, through the sorting process students consider that ai and aconsonant-e are common patterns while ay is less common, and consistently represented at the end of a word. Other long a vowel patterns such as ea in steak, ei in veil, eigh in eight, and au in gauge are far less common and generally are positioned in the middle or beginning of a word. Meaning becomes important when considering homophones or unfamiliar words. Students must consider context or the meaning to determine if they will use ai or a-consonant-e when spelling gate as in, “The horse went through the gate,” as opposed to, “The horse lengthened his gait as he approached the fence.” Students reflect or consider issues of pattern, position, and meaning and generalize these understandings to unfamiliar words. Word study has been demonstrated as a superior approach to word study, especially when assessing unfamiliar words (Abbott, 2004). Finally, word study is embedded in a rich language arts program. Word study work is connected to reading and writing through teacher prompts in decoding, writing sorts, word hunts, and the development of vocabulary. Key Lessons To successfully transition from traditional to developmental spelling, word study, we choose to invest in the development of teacher expertise and research-based practice. Schools are, however, riddled with challenges that interfere with professional development including access to teachers, time, funding, varied levels of knowledge and expertise, competing curricular and professional development needs, materials, and a lack of ‘capacity’ or

knowledgeable literacy leaders at individual schools. This article discusses the eight key lessons we experienced as an Early Childhood Supervisor and Literacy Coach in supporting teachers in addressing these challenges and implementing a successful developmental spelling program. Lesson 1: Identify a Research-Based Literacy Initiative Word study or developmental spelling is based in decades of research. Edmund Henderson and his students first documented a predictable continuum of spelling development and described a comprehensive model of word knowledge based on a series of studies known as the “Virginia studies’ more than 30 years ago. The five developmental stages: Emergent, Letter Name, Within Word Pattern, Syllables and Affixes, and Derivational Relations have been described through levels of orthographic knowledge which are synchronous with predictable reading and writing behaviors (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, Johnston, 2008; Henderson & Templeton, 1986; Henderson, 1990; Invernizzi, Abouzeid & Gill, 1994). Qualitative spelling inventories, valid and reliable measures, were developed to identify the instructional spelling stages and to provide insight into students’ knowledge of spelling features: those that have been mastered, are used inconsistently, or appear to be absent (Bear, et al, 2008, Ganske, 1994, 2000; Schlagal, 1986; Vise, 1996). The concept of an instructional spelling level has been established and suggests that students make greater gains in spelling when they are taught spelling at their instructional or developmental level (Morris, Nelson, & Perney , 1986; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, and Perney (1995a, 1995b). Based on this research, an instructional approach known as word sorting, or the categorization of words by sound, pattern and/or meaning (Bear, et al, 2008; Henderson, 1990) has been designed and implemented in classrooms across the country to develop student word knowledge. Additionally, research has demonstrated that students with learning disabilities and

non-native English speakers also progress through a similar continuum as they learn to read and spell (Bear, Helman, Invernizzi, & Templeton, 2007; Worthy & Invernizzi, 1990). A reciprocal relationship exists between a student’s knowledge of phonology, orthography, and morphology and his or her ability to recognize words in print. Spelling samples, which reflect this knowledge, are considered a powerful predictor of reading achievement (Carlisle, 2004; Ehri, 2005; Ehri & McCormick, 2004; McCandliss, Beck, Sendak, & Perfetti, 2003; O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995; Shefelbine, 1990). Knowledge of spellingmeaning connections, or morphological awareness, also makes a significant contribution to reading comprehension and vocabulary (Ehri & Rosenthal, 2008; Nagy, Berringer, & Abbot, 2006; Templeton, 2003; White, Power, & White, 1989) For all of these reasons, the development of word knowledge is a critical component of an elementary curriculum and worth the investment of teacher expertise, time, funding, and instruction. Lesson 2: Establish Leadership In our experience, leadership at both the division and the school levels were critical elements to the success of the developmental spelling initiative. At the district level, the Early Childhood Supervisor was responsible for the spelling textbook adoption review process, a yearlong pilot of a word study program at four elementary schools, and subsequently the implementation of the word study initiative across the division. She was in the position to facilitate communication with the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction, content Supervisors, specialists, elementary principals, as well as reading, classroom, special education, and ELL teachers regarding both expectations and instructional support for teachers. Expectations and guidelines for the initiative were developed in concert with school literacy teams involved in the

pilot and clearly communicated across the division. Clear expectations and background on the initiative allowed elementary principals and reading teachers to effectively support the change from traditional to developmental spelling. Most importantly, communication was iterative. Feedback from principals, teachers, and reading specialists was sought and led to changes in implementation. Lesson 3: Identify Knowledgeable Site-Based Staff Word study implementation required an investment in teacher expertise. A critical element to division implementation was to identify a resident expert, most often the school reading specialist. This person distributed materials, supervised and coached teachers through the assessment process, conducted faculty training, modeled lessons, and most importantly served as a consultant for teachers in the building. Although the division designed and provided professional development opportunities, teachers valued and sought a ‘resident expert’ to ask questions and gain confidence. Having the resident expert available also allowed teachers to ask questions in a non-threatening, risk-free environment. The resident expert was also key to effective communication. For example, in the fall one reading specialist discovered that the kindergarten teachers had not begun to address beginning sound sorts. They were following what they perceived to be the established scope and sequence of the prepublished sort books, which included a large number of concept and rhyme sorts at the beginning. The kindergarten teachers did not understand that the sort books were meant to serve as a resource and that pacing should be adjusted based on student progress. Once this concern was communicated to the Early Childhood Supervisor, she crafted an explanation of this issue for all kindergarten staff in the division. She explained that while the pre-published sorts were sequenced in a developmentally appropriate continuum, the expectation

was that teachers would use professional judgment and student assessment to determine the pacing and purpose of instruction. The resident expert was able to provide direct, immediate feedback to teachers, principals, and leaders of the initiative. Then the Early Childhood Supervisor was able to share this experience with teachers across the division. Lesson 4: Provide Developmentally Appropriate Accessible Materials Given the importance of teaching word study in small groups, according to student assessment, we recognized a need for differentiated materials that were easily accessible to teachers and did not require extensive planning in order to establish an instructional routine. Picture and word sorts. We worked with a publishing and company to customize a developmental spelling program and expanded five student sort books arranged with approximately fifty sorts at each developmental level: Emergent, Letter Name, Within Word Pattern, Syllables & Affixes, and Derivational Relations. We elected to create sort books that had more sorts than the original materials, which had included exactly the number of sorts to match the number of weeks in a school year. The books were lengthened to send the message that students should work at their own pace and not that of the student book. Some students would need to begin their work in the middle of the text and complete each sort, while others would begin early in the text, but not need every sort. After working with particular features, some students would be ready to move on and some would need review with supplemental materials. The goal of enriching these materials was to provide teachers with adequate resources to implement developmental spelling theory, and the custom published sort books provided the main source for materials to do so. The students’ progress should determine the pace, not the materials. To underscore this point, we wrote and provided a second collection of word sorts and posted them on our intranet to supplant the published materials. Teachers were reminded that we

have implemented word study as an instructional methodology, and we use a variety of materials to implement this method. Teacher resource guide: Content and instructional practice support. The teacher manual was also custom-published to emphasize both instructional support and content knowledge. Teachers were provided with a specific word study routines and step-by-step guidelines for each of the instructional techniques. The teacher resource guide provided guidelines for directed model sort, writing sort, word hunt, speed sort and other techniques. It was intended to scaffold teacher learning and instruction. In addition, the teacher resource guide provided content support in the form of “sort support.” For each individual sort in every stage book, teachers were able to read about the generalization or central concept in the Teacher resource guide. For example in Within Word Pattern, if the word sort emphasized the features –tch as in pitch and –ch as in teach, the teacher would read that -tch is used most often in words that have short vowels such as pitch, catch, clutch, and retch, while –ch is used primarily in words with long or ambiguous vowels such as teach, speech, and touch. There are, or course, a few exceptions such as rich, such, and much. This sort support, which can be found in the series of professional books by the authors of Words Their Way (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2008) was invaluable for teachers who are often leaning the generalizations themselves, particularly at the later stages. The Teacher resource guide also provided explicit information on how to integrate word study into language arts instruction, an overview of each developmental spelling stage, tips for English Language Learners, and guidelines on assessment. Lesson 5: Provide Varied Professional Development

Our division explicitly supports three types of professional development: central office, school-based, and self-initiated. We elected to utilize an integrated approach by designing and offering professional development opportunities that were varied in approach and time commitment and would appeal to teachers. For county-wide development, we sponsored two sections of a graduate course on word study through a local university. The adjunct instructors had earned masters in education through the university and were serving as reading specialists in our division. This provided a unique opportunity for the instructors to address instructional practice issues relevant to both the division and the university course. Elementary teachers self-selected this course and shared their work with school-based colleagues and parents. We also designed and offered a series of county-wide workshops throughout the year. We divided the series into primary (K-2) and upper elementary (3-5) strands and focused on four important topics: establishing effective word study routines and practices, integrating word study with vocabulary and writing, and designing word study lessons, activities, and games. During the summer we also offered half-day sessions on establishing the essential practices and routines of a word study program. All professional opportunities were attended on a voluntary basis. In addition, we collaborated with approximately half of our elementary schools to design and implement school-wide professional development initiatives. The division literacy specialist worked with four schools as a literacy coach by modeling and observing lessons, consulting with teachers, facilitating grade level and vertical meetings, guiding assessment and supporting implementation of small group instruction for students. Serving in each of the four schools on a regular basis allowed the literacy coach to develop relationships with the staff and support their implementation of word study. Having a literacy coach on site also allowed teachers to feel

comfortable asking more content-based questions about how the orthographic patterns function in words or how to use specific instructional techniques. The Early Childhood Supervisor also worked with several schools designing and facilitating site-based workshops on the same topics provided as county-wide sessions. The sitebased initiatives have the advantage of a single faculty sharing a common language, experience, and support. She facilitated assessment and grouping meetings, conducted workshops, modeled in classrooms, observed and provided feedback, and gathered feedback from teachers and principals. It should also be noted that reading specialists, and in some cases, conducted sitebased training for their individual schools. Lesson 6: Establish Innovative Methods to Sustain Conversation and Engage Teachers As noted previously, teachers attended professional development on a voluntary basis; therefore, many teachers did not have the benefit of these guided experiences. This is one reason that we devoted time and attention to providing instructional practice and content support in the Teacher resource guide and student word sorts. Nevertheless, in order to scaffold teachers’ instruction and learning, we deliberately considered and later designed resources to engage all teachers in a sustained conversation about word study and its effective implementation. Word Study Tips for Teachers. Recognizing that teachers’ planning time is limited and stretched by the demands of other content areas, we compiled what we thought the challenges, misconceptions, or ‘burning issues’ of word study would be and published Word Study Tips for Teachers. Each tip was deliberately crafted to be no longer than a single page, front and back, and addressed specific instructional issues. They were distributed electronically as well as through a hard copy in teacher’s mailboxes every other week. Although we wanted to avoid inundating teachers, we created a vehicle to nudge and prompt teachers to consider instructional

issues. Word Study Tips for Teachers included issues such as: developing a word study routine (see Figure 1), following a sort, check, reflect routine (see Figure 2) integrating word study with reading and writing, assessing and monitoring student progress, teaching spelling strategies, considering the big idea through written reflection, conducting effective word hunts, integrating word study and vocabulary development, and developing thoughtful word study notebook assignments. These tips were posted on Blackboard and in teachers’ classrooms. They led to conversations, requests for model lessons, and additional requests for tips. The Word Study Tips for Teachers were created throughout the year based on teacher questions, requests from reading specialists, and needs identified through classroom visits and teacher consultations by the literacy coach. Word Study Video Modules. In addition to the Word Study Tips for Teachers, we worked to film and produce several ten-to-twelve minute video clips of instructional strategies such a model sorting, word hunts, and writing sorts. These brief video modules demonstrated essential word study techniques and were aligned with the teacher resource guide. We believed that a picture or a film in this case, is worth a thousand words. The films featured our own teachers teaching our diverse student population. Word Study Professional Practice Checklist (WSPPC). As part of the pilot study, the first author designed, field tested, and revised a Word Study Professional Practice Checklist (see Figure 3). This fifteen indicator checklist was designed to provide guidelines for teachers to consider when conducting word study lessons and simultaneously to provide administrators a framework to understand and observe developmental spelling routines. The checklist includes guidelines such as: form small groups for instruction, encourage students to use a sort, check, and reflect routine, engage students in problem solving discussion when determining placement

in categories during the sorting process, and ask students to consider the ‘big idea’ or the generalization represented by the word sort. The Word Study Professional Practice Checklist was published in the Teacher resource guide; teachers were encouraged to review the checklist as a self-reflection opportunity. Both authors used the checklist as a foundation for providing feedback to teachers. Lesson 7: Focus on Student Progress and Achievement The use of ongoing assessment to inform instruction was a key component of the initiative. At the beginning of the school year, all of the reading specialists and special education lead teachers were provided training in how to administer and analyze developmental spelling inventories. The reading specialists then provided the same training at each of their schools, using materials provided to them including instruction packets, assessment materials, and student samples. The assessment results were used to identify each student’s developmental spelling level, assess individual strengths and weaknesses, and form instructional groups. This focus on student progress was continued by having all schools administer developmental spelling inventories to all K-5 students again at midyear and the end of the year. The midyear assessments were used to regroup students as needed and adjust instruction based on student progress. Administering the assessments three times per year also allows individual teachers and administrators to monitor student growth over time. Both authors and the reading teachers in each building conducted ‘scoring parties’ or assessment conversations. At three points in the year, a resident expert would meet with each grade level team to consider student progress and plan instruction. We found that once teachers experienced the growth of their students not only on the qualitative spelling inventory, but in

their day-to-day writing, teachers were energized and reinvested in learning and implementing an effective word study program. Lesson 8: Adapt the Initiative to the Needs of Teachers Finally, our last key lesson acknowledges the need to listen to teachers and to respond and adjust expectations that support instruction for students. The strength of our first year of implementation remained in the iterative cycle of feedback with teachers. The leadership listened to the concerns, questions, and candid complaints of teachers and responded through various forms of communication and professional development. Word Study Tips for Teachers began as frequently asked questions and became a vehicle for sustained conversation. Professional development sessions addressed relevant instructional practices and integrated word study with other strands of literacy. The video modules were designed for teachers who do not have access to a reading specialist, literacy coach, or resident expert. The division funded graduate courses, site-based workshops, after-school sessions, ‘scoring parties,’ Word Study Tips for Teachers, video modules, and a teacher resource guide that is highly supportive of instructional practice in order to engage as many teachers as possible in a context of limited time and multiple priorities. Innovation was born in response to teachers’ needs and interests. Concluding Comments Despite decades of research and professional practice, developmental spelling, word study, continues to be absent from classrooms today. Our urban district invested not only in a research based literacy practice, but in the development of teacher expertise. We have described eight key lessons which supported a successful transition from traditional to developmental spelling. Leadership and knowledgeable resident experts must be identified and communicate candidly with one another. Developmentally appropriate, teacher friendly materials should be

provided that support differentiated instruction and streamline planning time. Professional development must include not only workshops, resource guides, and graduate courses but also innovations that reach teachers in their classrooms and homes such as video modules, professional practice checklists, and tips for teachers. Ultimately, there must be a focus on student progress and achievement. It is the learning and growth of our students that compels teachers to invest in their own expertise and practice. Any research-based literacy initiative worth implementing must be responsive to the needs of teachers and students. References Abbott, M. (2004). Effects of traditional versus extended word-study spelling instruction on students’ orthographic knowledge./ Reading Online/. March. http://www.readingonline.org/articles/abbott Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Publishing. Bear, D. R, Helman, L. Invernizzi, M., & Templeton, S., (2007). Words their way with English language learner: Word study for spelling, phonics, and vocabulary. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Carlisle, J. F. (2004). Morphological processes that influence learning to read. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders (pp. 318-339). New York: Guilford Press. Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. (1987). Does learning to spell help beginners learn to read real words? Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 47-65. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theories, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9 (2), 167-188.

Ehri, L. C., & Rosenthal, J. (2008). The spelling of words: A neglected facilitator of vocabulary learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 4, 389-410. Fresch, M. J. (2003). A national survey of spelling instruction: Investigating teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 35 (3), 819-848. Fresch, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ concerns about spelling instruction: A national survey. Reading Psychology, 28 (4), 301-330. Ganske, K. (2000). Word Journeys. New York: Guilford. Helman, L. A. & Bear, D. R. (2007). Does an established model of orthographic development hold true for English learners? In D. W. Rowe, R. T. Jimenez, D.L. Compton, D.K. Dickinson, Y. Kim, K. M. Leander, & V. J. Risko (Eds.) 56th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 266-280) Oak Creek, Wisconsin: National Reading Conference, Inc. Henderson, E. H. & Templeton, S. (1986). The development of spelling ability through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. Elementary School Journal, 86, 305-316. Invernizzi, M., Abouzeid, M., & Gill, T. (1994). Using students’ invented spellings as a guide for spelling instruction that emphasizes word study. The Elementary School Journal, 95 (2), 155-167. McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R. & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of word building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7 (1), 75-104. Morris, D., Nelson, L., & Perney, J. (1986). Exploring the concept of “spelling instructional level” through the analysis of error-types. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 181-200.

Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching lowachieving spellers at their “instructional level.” The Elementary School Journal, 96, 163177. Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and achievement in six classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 145-162. Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbot, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 134-147. O’Connor, R. E. & Jenkins, J. R. (1995). Improving the generalization of sound symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling to kindergarten children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29 (3), 255-275. Shefelbine, J. L. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word meanings from context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22 (1), 71-97. Schlagal, R. C. (1986). Informal and qualitative assessment of spelling. The Pointer, 30, 37-41. Schlagal, R. C. (2001). Traditional, developmental, and structured language approaches to spelling: Review and recommendations. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 147-176. Schlagal, R. C. (2002). Classroom spelling instruction: History, research, and practice. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(1), 44-57. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications. Templeton, S. (2003). Spelling. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp.738-751). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Templeton, S. (2002). Effective spelling instruction in the middle grades: It's a lot more than memorization. Voices from the Middle, 9(3), 8-14. Viise, N. (1996). A study of the spelling development of adult literacy learners compared with that of classroom children. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(4), 561-587. White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 (3), 283304. Worthy, M. J., & Invernizzi, M. (1990). Spelling errors of normal and disabled students on achievement levels one through four: Instructional implications. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 138-151. Zutell, J. (1998). Word sorting: A developmental spelling approach to word study for delayed readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 219-238. Dr. Michelle Picard is the English Language Arts Supervisor for Arlington Public Schools in Virginia. During her career in education, she has taught elementary and middle school in Massachusetts and Virginia, served as a Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Education, and as an adjunct professor and reading clinic director for the University of Virginia. Her professional interests include early childhood, developmental spelling, reading and writing in the content areas, and adolescent and children’s literature. Alison Meadows is a reading specialist and literacy coach in Arlington Public Schools, as well as an adjunct faculty member for the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. A National Board certified teacher, Ms. Meadows has taught reading courses and conducted professional development for a wide variety of audiences. Her professional interests include literacy development, developmental spelling, reading intervention, and professional learning for educators. Ms. Meadows is currently pursuing an Educational Specialist degree in Administration and Supervision at the University of Virginia. Picard and Meadows are currently writing Words Their Way for Parents: How to Support Your Child’s Phonics, Spelling, and Vocabulary Development with authors Donald Bear, Marcia Invernizzi, and Francine Johnston.

Figure 1: Word Study Tips for Teachers

Word Study Tip for Teachers Word Study Routine It is essential that teachers develop a routine for word study instruction and follow-up independent work. This framework provides students which multiple opportunities to work with words in varied activities. Four instructional essentials include: Teacher Modeling/Discussion of Word Sort Teachers work with small groups to model and discuss the weekly sort. After discussion of vocabulary and the generalizations for the week, students sort, check, and reflect under the supervision of the teacher. Daily Student Sorting Students will practice sorting their words by sound, pattern, and meaning on a daily basis. Students sort, check, and reflect. Word Hunts Once a week, students look for words in familiar text that match the sound or pattern under study. Students are also encouraged to identify relevant oddballs or words that break the pattern. Students record their word hunts in their word study notebooks and/or class charts. Primary teachers and students are encouraged to provide poems or texts that have over represented the features under study such as the Pearson leveled readers and poetry books. Upper grade students may use any independent or instructional level text including novels, picture books, basal readers, and library books. Blind or Writing Sort Students create columns labeled with feature headings. As teachers call out the words students must spell the word correctly in the correct category. Teachers use both the words from the weekly sort and others that fit the pattern under study. Blind/Writing sorts are useful for assessment and for on-going instructional practice. Primary teachers and students often use white boards during small group work to conduct this activity while upper grade students routinely work in pairs to complete a blind sort.

Figure 2: Word Study Tips for Teachers

Word Study Tip for Teachers Sort – Check – Reflect This is the basic routine that should be followed as the students sort their words. Remember to include the Check and Reflect as part of your routine to solidify student understanding of spelling patterns. Effective word study instruction needs to include all three parts of the procedure. Sort Students sort their words or pictures using headers. Remind students that as they sort they should be saying the words out loud. Check Students should read down each column out loud after they have finished sorting. This gives them an opportunity to see and hear the patterns, work towards automaticity, and identify any misplaced words. This can be done with the teacher or with a partner. Reflect After sorting and checking, the students should reflect on their sort. Students will explain to the teacher or a partner WHY each group has been sorted together, or what all the words in one column have in common. Giving students the opportunity to articulate the spelling patterns will help strengthen their understanding. In addition to similarities and differences, students in the Within Word Pattern stage and above will discuss the frequency and position of specific features. What is the same/different about all of these words/pictures? Why are all of these words/pictures together? When would you use (insert feature)? How do you know when to use (insert feature)? Where is (insert feature) usually found? What is the most common pattern? What is your best bet?