Individuals with reading disabilities may continue to struggle with spelling even after receiving successful reading intervention.

Introduction:

Individuals with reading disabilities may continue to struggle with spelling even after receiving successful reading intervention. 

While these students face challenges in various subjects, they may find it particularly tough to gain and master specific spelling abilities. Learning to spell words involves the development of various skills related to understanding and applying spelling rules and patterns. Spelling is a developmental process that involves a combination of code-based skills.

Phonemic awareness instruction, where students learn to hear and manipulate sounds in speech, is crucial for spelling and its base, as the ability to segment words into phonemes predicts spelling achievement. 

Students should be able to identify the letters of the alphabet and understand that they represent specific sounds, which is referred to as the alphabetic principle. This results in the development of phonological awareness and the realization that phonemes can correspond to written letters or combinations of letters. 

Teaching spelling involves more than just teaching students how to match letters to specific sounds; it is a more intricate process.

The English orthography consists of three layers that affect spelling development: alphabetic, pattern, and meaning.

We progress from: 

1- alphabetic layer ( where we have letter-to-sound relationships)

2- pattern layer ( they learn to find patterns that identify groups of letters)

3- meaning layer ( where groups of letters are related to word meanings) 

As students go through these layers, spelling challenges arise because students move from focusing on spelling sounds to spelling for meaning. 

In a study: 

• Reading and spelling are closely related processes, but spelling (encoding) can be more challenging than reading (decoding) due to its nature as a production task.
• When children decode new words, they recognize familiar patterns and apply their knowledge of the alphabetic principle, but this skill may not automatically transfer to spelling.
• Encoding instruction involves teaching phoneme-grapheme relationships and word work activities.
• Results suggest that encoding instruction increases students’ knowledge of the alphabetic principle, development of phonemic awareness, and growth of reading and spelling skills.

Method: 

1-    Data collection: 

Computer Search:

• Conducted using ERIC, Education Source, and PsychINFO databases from January 2004 to September 2014.
• Primary search terms included “read*”, “spell*”, or “writ*”, with secondary terms such as “learning dis*”, “LD”, “mild handicaps”, etc.
• Initial search yielded 6,263 articles, which were categorized into “yes”, “maybe”, and “no” after reviewing titles and abstracts.
• Studies in the “yes” and “maybe” categories underwent further scrutiny to meet inclusion criteria.

Hand Search:

• Conducted in nine major journals covering cross-categorical special education research and LD-specific studies from September 2012 to September 2014.
• Journals included Exceptional Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities, etc.
• No additional relevant articles were found through this method.
• An ancestral search using reference lists of related syntheses yielded no additional studies.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Participants were identified with LD, or disaggregated data were provided for those with LD.
• Participants were in kindergarten through 12th grade.
• Study design was treatment-comparison or single subject.
• Intervention included spelling or reading instruction in English.
• Dependent measures directly tested spelling words in isolation.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Studies not published in English, or did not disaggregate results for students with LD.
• Studies not diagnosing LD or stating participants as struggling readers.
• Single-group or qualitative designs were excluded.
• Studies not published in peer-reviewed or academic journals.
• Interventions not directly related to reading or spelling instruction were excluded.

Results: 

The synthesis summarizes results across studies based on participants’ characteristics, type of design, intervention characteristics, duration, and intervention group size and implementer.

1-    Participants characteristics: 

• The studies included a total of 71 participants, with 77% males and 23% females, all identified as students with LD.
• LD status was determined mostly through school records, such as having an Individualized Education Program or receiving special education services.
• Four studies explicitly stated that LD was identified through the IQ discrepancy model.
• Two studies did not report how students were identified with LD.
• Socioeconomic status was generally not reported, but four studies indicated that participants were from low- or middle-class backgrounds.
• Participants were in Grades 2

2-    Type of design: 

The search and subsequent review for inclusion identified one experimental study utilizing a treatment-comparison design and nine single-case designs.

a)     Treatment-comparison:

·       Darch et al. (2006) compared rule-based strategy spelling instruction with traditional spelling instruction.

·       Effect sizes were calculated for various measures in the study.

·       Moderate to large effects favored the rule-based spelling strategy group for researcher-created unit tests and transfer tests.

·       Small to moderate effects also favored the rule-based strategy group for the Test of Written Spelling–3 and a maintenance test.

·       However, these differences were not statistically significant.

b)    Single-case design: 

• Several studies utilized single-case designs to assess spelling outcomes in students with LD.
• Three studies employed alternating treatment designs.
• Three studies utilized multiple-probe designs.
• Two studies used multiple baseline designs, with one also incorporating a brief reversal.
• One study implemented a brief ABA design.
• Percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) calculations were attempted for all studies, but could only be calculated for 18 out of 29 individual cases.
• There was considerable variability in the effectiveness of treatments, with some being highly effective while others were ineffective.
• Despite mixed outcomes when considering PND alone, all participants demonstrated gains qualitatively.
• In cases where PND could not be calculated, participants still showed improvements in spelling.
• For studies using alternating treatment designs, results favored certain interventions over others.
• The cover-copy-compare (CCC) strategy yielded better spelling outcomes compared to the copy alone strategy.
• Traditional repeated practice was less effective than error self-correction in improving spelling accuracy.
• One study showed an increase in partial points on a spelling measure after intervention.
• Overall, the studies indicated varied effectiveness of interventions on spelling outcomes for students with LD.

3-    Intervention characteristics: 

Included in the synthesis were studies with a spelling or reading intervention as the independent variable, each featuring a dependent measure evaluating spelling of words in isolation, with subsequent sections detailing findings based on the type of intervention (spelling or reading).

a)     Spelling intervention:

• Nine out of the ten studies focused on spelling interventions.
• Participants generally showed improved spelling accuracy after interventions.
• Various strategies and components were employed in these spelling interventions.
• Two studies specifically examined the effectiveness of the Spelling Mastery program, showing moderate to large effects on spelling tests.
• Five studies investigated self-correction strategies, primarily utilizing Cover-Copy-Compare (CCC) method, resulting in increased spelling accuracy for participants.
• One study added classwide peer tutoring to traditional spelling programs, leading to improved spelling outcomes for all participants.
• Another study utilized application approach, combining letter-sound writing and oral word segmentation, which also improved spelling accuracy for participants.

b)    Reading intervention:

• One study focused on the effects of a reading intervention on spelling outcomes.
• The study implemented the Read Well program, which offers systematic, explicit reading instruction in various areas.
• Spelling outcomes were assessed before and after the intervention for two participants with LD.
• Both participants showed improved performance on the spelling measure after completing the Read Well program.

4-    Duration of intervention: 

• Duration of intervention was calculated based on the frequency and length of sessions in the original studies.
• Most interventions were relatively short, with four studies providing intervention for 10 hours or less.
• Two studies utilized interventions lasting longer than 11 hours but less than 40 hours.
• Intervention length moderated effectiveness in one study, where participants who received 15 to 20 hours showed the greatest gains.
• Session length ranged from 20 to 30 minutes in three studies.
• Overall, regardless of intervention length, all studies demonstrated increased spelling performance.

5-    Intervention Group Size and Implementer:

·       Group sizes in all studies were relatively small.

·       Four studies involved interventionists working individually with participants.

·       In the remaining studies, students were taught in small groups of two to six, although they typically worked independently during interventions.

·       In most studies, the classroom teacher served as the interventionist, with a few exceptions where researchers or trained paraprofessionals were involved.

 Discussion:

This synthesis examines spelling and reading interventions and their impact on spelling outcomes for students with LD in grades K through 12. Ten studies were reviewed, with findings categorized by participant characteristics, design type, intervention characteristics, duration, group size, and implementer. Most studies utilized single-case designs, with only one employing a treatment-comparison design. Participants in all studies showed increased spelling accuracy for words directly taught and practiced in interventions.

Two types of interventions emerged: self-correction procedures like CCC and explicit instruction such as Spelling Mastery. Despite differences, interventions incorporating explicit instruction, practice, and feedback led to improved spelling accuracy. However, participants often did not reach clinically significant levels, with accuracy remaining below 70%.

Spelling outcomes were typically measured through oral dictation tests, with few studies assessing transfer to untaught words or maintenance over time. Reliability and validity of measures were rarely reported. More research is needed to determine how interventions affect spelling performance and generalization.

Moderator variables like grade, duration, group size, and implementer were difficult to discern due to similar outcomes across studies. While secondary-level studies showed promise, they had limited participants. Most studies used small groups or individual instruction, with little exploration of larger group implementation.

Regarding the impact of reading interventions on spelling outcomes for students with LD, evidence was scarce. Although spelling instruction can positively affect reading, more research is needed to explore this relationship for students with LD.

In conclusion, while various spelling interventions showed promise in improving accuracy, there remains a need for more rigorous research, particularly regarding transferability to untaught words and the impact of reading interventions on spelling outcomes for students with LD.

CCC-Self correction:

Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC) has self-monitoring features and is an empirically validated academic intervention that has been found to be effective in improving the spelling skills of students 

CCC intervention is easy to implement and socially acceptable and includes multiple practice opportunities, immediate corrective feedback on performance, and access to reinforcement. 

The basic CCC spelling intervention consists of the following: a) the student views the correct spelling of the word; b) the student covers the word; c) the student writes the word; d) the student uncovers the word and compares her spelling to the correct model; e) the student provides herself with reinforcement (e.g., checkmark) if correct, and if incorrect, the student rewrites the word a predetermined amount of times (usually three rewrites) while viewing the correct model.

Spelling Mastery Program:

Spelling Mastery is designed to explicitly teach spelling skills to students in grades 1 through 6. It includes phonemic, morphemic, and whole-word strategies

Spelling Mastery was found to have potentially positive effects on writing for students with learning disabilities.