using word study instruction with developmental college students

Using word study instruction withdevelopmental college students

Terry S. AtkinsonDepartment of Literacy Studies, English Education and History Education, EastCarolina University, USA

Guili Zhang and Nancy ZellerDepartment of Special Education, Foundations and Research, East CarolinaUniversity, USA

Shannon F. PhillipsKnightdale Elementary, Wake County Schools, USA

This study investigates the effect of word study instruction on the orthographic knowl-edge of college students enrolled in a developmental reading course. Results revealedsignificantly greater improvement in orthographic knowledge in students who receivedword study instruction when compared with those in a control group, suggesting thatthe word study approach was effective for these students. Because of the influence oforthographic knowledge on spelling, writing and reading, additional research is meritedto examine how word study intervention impacts the reading behaviours and academicachievement of college students enrolled in developmental education courses.

Meeting the needs of an ever-increasing number of students is a mounting challenge fortoday’s colleges and universities within a global economic and political landscape wherehigher education budgets continue to tighten. Numbers of adult learners increase onpostsecondary campuses with the addition of those impacted by recessionary cutbacksand downsizing, as well as returning veterans and recent immigrants who find that theircurrent skill levels offer few job possibilities in today’s market (Russell, 2008). Copingwith an influx of ‘nontraditional’ students further exacerbates the problem of supportingstudents for whom college-level work presents a huge challenge. Large numbers ofstudents who never considered attending college are applying for admission and enrollingin classes. Indeed, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities documentsthat the desire to earn a college degree has never been higher (Russell, 2008), leading to thereality that numbers of underprepared students who enter university campuses will notdecrease in years to come (McCabe, 2003).A variety of college and university support systems exist with the purpose of supporting

underprepared students upon entry to higher education settings. Such systems, courses and

Copyright © 2013 UKLA. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12015Volume 37, Issue 4, 2014, pp 433–448

services are termed with a variety of titles, including remedial education, basic skillseducation and, most commonly, developmental education.This study focuses on multiple sections of a developmental reading course at a Research

II university in the southeastern United States. Students on this course’s rosters wereautomatically enrolled as a condition of their university acceptance after earning scoresbelow 420 on the verbal section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Consideringthe need to explore strategies that would potentially benefit her developmental educa-tion students, the course instructor provided a short-term intervention meant to bolsterorthographic knowledge for an experimental group (students in one section of thedevelopmental education course that she taught), whereas a control group (studentsin a second section of the same course that she taught) did not receive this instruction.In doing so, the instructor sought to document the efficacy of the word studyapproach (Bear et al., 2004) for use with the college students enrolled in a develop-mental reading course.

Related literature

Developmental education: effective instructional methods

There is no one ‘unified, agreed-upon approach’ (Paulson, 2006) for effectively supportingdevelopmental education students. One theme, however, that emerges across the develop-mental education literature is that multiple teaching approaches offer great promise forthese students with repeated tarnishes on their past academic endeavours (Morelli, 2006;Russell, 2008). With a wide array of academic, motivational and personal factorsimpacting developmental education students, a remedial approach, typical in manydevelopmental settings, can lead to boredom and lack of transfer to broader literacyunderstandings. Moreover, when teaching approaches for struggling adult learners focuson phonological awareness (understanding that spoken words are composed of units[i.e., syllables and phonemes – the smallest sound units within words] that can bemanipulated) and orthographic understandings (alphabetic principle, spelling patternsand meaning patterns/roots), a range of related positive literacy outcomes may result,including improvement not only in spelling but also in writing, reading rate and,ultimately, reading comprehension (Kitz & Nash, 1992). Because effective literacystrategies are fundamental to all learning, increases in literacy proficiency have the potentialto impact not only the academic success of college students enrolled in developmental readingcourses but also future career and life accomplishments. Further, as McCusker (1999) argued,research efforts must be ongoing to examine and explore appropriate and effective instruc-tional methods for this segment of postsecondary students.

The word study approach and its use with various populations

Decades of orthographic research conducted at the University of Virginia investigated theprogression of word knowledge as it develops across childhood, adolescence and adult-hood (Henderson, 1990; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Templeton & Bear, 1992). Resultingin the word study approach to teaching spelling, phonics and vocabulary, this instructionalmethod has been shown to benefit readers, writers and spellers of all ages. On the basis ofconclusions noted by University of Virginia researchers, Invernizzi and Hayes (2004),

434 ATKINSON, ZHANG, PHILLIPS and ZELLER

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

cross-grade-level and longitudinal studies clearly documented a developmental spellingprogression that ‘occurs for all learners of written English in the same direction and variesonly in the rate of acquisition’ (Bear et al., 2007, p. 5).The word study approach to teaching phonics, spelling and vocabulary focuses on

the orthography of written words in the English language, which comprised threeinextricably woven layers: alphabet (letter–sound relationships), pattern (letter groupingsthat recur consistently) and meaning (groups of letters or morphemes denoting meaning).Each layer increases in complexity and builds on previous levels such that readers, writersand spellers with advanced understandings experience ongoing interaction among thesethree orthographic tiers (Henderson & Beers, 1980). Further, this iterative relationshipexplains why increases in orthographic knowledge lead to improvement in decodingand reading ability, as well as encoding and writing ability. A distinct progressionoccurs as literacy develops, captured by developmental spelling researchers in theirdescription of a five sequential stage model. As learners become more literate, theyadvance through emergent, letter-name, within word, syllables and affixes, and derivationalstages of spelling development. This stage framework provides the foundation for thedevelopmental spelling assessments and the word study approach to instructiondetailed in Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and SpellingInstruction (Bear et al., 2004, 2007).The purpose of word study as described by the authors of Words Their Way

(Bear et al., 2007) is ‘to examine words in order to reveal consistencies withinour written language system and to help students master the recognition, spellingand meaning of specific words’ (p. 4). The approach is atypical when compared withmore traditional phonics, spelling and vocabulary instruction that emphasises drill andpractice or rote memorisation. Word study experiences teach students how to build wordknowledge through active sorting of words and/or related pictures. This sorting process leadsto word feature generalisations or spelling patterns, which are then applied to related wordsleading to further consolidation of orthographic knowledge. In addition, the instructionalapproach is highly dependent on thinking (Ganske, 2006) as students make critical decisionsabout spelling patterns, speech sounds and word meanings (Bear et al., 2007). Word studyinstruction is a particularly appropriate instructional method for students who haveexperienced academic failure as its engaging and motivating nature supports long-termmemory retrieval and application of related skills and strategies (Mulholland, 2002; Viise& Austin, 2005).The effectiveness of the word study approach has been documented with a wide array of

learners in numerous contexts. Although researchers have examined the effectiveness ofword study instruction (Beckham-Hungler & Williams, 2003; Williams & Hufnagel,2005; Williams & Lundstrom, 2007; Williams & Phillips-Birdsong, 2006; Williams,Phillips-Birdsong, Hufnagel, Hungler & Lundstrom, 2009), the benefits of word studylearning are not limited to young students and adolescents. Shaw’s (see Massengill, 2006)research focused on use of the word study approach with struggling adult readers, buildingon the notion that a developmental approach to spelling instruction is beneficial for alllearners, regardless of their age. Shaw and Berg (2008) found that word study instructionhad a striking impact on the orthographic knowledge of adults who sought remedial readinginstruction at an adult literacy centre. Earlier research inquiries documented increases in wordknowledge, confidence and self-esteem among adult poor spellers who voluntarily took partin word study activities (Massengill, 2006) and in the spelling ability and self-efficacy of jailinmates who participated in word study interventions (Shaw & Berg, 2007). Additionally,

WORD STUDY 435


Greenberg, Rodrigo, Berry, Brinck and Joseph (2006) found that extensive word studyexperiences led low-literacy adult learners to increased vocabulary knowledge and the abilityto read for greater meaning.In sum, studies have documented that word knowledge follows a developmental

progression from childhood to adulthood. Although the needs and challenges of develop-mental college students may differ from those of elementary, adolescent and adult learners,word study instruction offers learners, no matter what their age, a systematic approach tothe study of phonics, vocabulary and spelling that ‘leads to more explicit understandingof English orthography’ (Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004, p. 226). Indeed, Bennett-Kastor(2004) documented that college students placed into developmental writing courses areless effective spellers than students in college-level writing courses. This single study doc-uments what might logically be concluded about underprepared college students-that spell-ing is a significant challenge impeding their future academic success. Moreover, currentstudies have not explored effectiveness of the word study approach for increasing the or-thographic knowledge and spelling ability of college students enrolled in developmentalreading courses. The results of this study are offered to provide initial insight into the ef-ficacy of this approach at the postsecondary level, to address a gap in the researchliterature and to provide a foundation upon which further studies might be conducted.

Methodology

A quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test control group design was employed to investigatethe impact of a short-term (5weeks) word study (Bear et al., 2004) intervention on devel-opmental college student participants. We were particularly interested in finding outwhether the short-term word study would result in different growths between the two com-parison groups. This investigation calls for a gain score analysis (Thomas & Zumbo,2012). The research design incorporates a pre-test to enable us to test whether the twogroups were significantly different on the pre-test. If the two groups were not significantlydifferent on the pre-test and if the two groups’ scores have equal variances, then the gainscore analysis can be used to test whether the two groups demonstrated significantlydifferent growths (Thomas & Zumbo, 2012). If, however, the two groups were signifi-cantly different on the pre-test, then the analysis of covariance would be used to controlfor the pre-existing difference between the two groups to ensure a fair comparison of thepost-test scores and therefore minimised possible threats to the validity of the researchfindings. The short duration of this intervention served as a key component of theresearch design to investigate whether the word study approach could quickly andeffectively boost students’ orthographic knowledge and spelling ability during the earlypart of a one-semester course.

Participants

Participants in this study included 39 first-year students enrolled in a developmentalreading course at a Research II university in the southeastern United States. The corecurriculum for this remedial course focused on study strategies, test-taking strategies andreading comprehension strategies and was designed specifically for students who scoredbelow 420 on the verbal section of the SAT. By a toss of a coin, one section of 19 studentsenrolled in this course was designated as the control group, and a second section of 20 students



enrolled in this course was selected as the treatment group. Because this course wasrequired for students admitted to the university by exception because of their substan-dard SAT scores, students were randomly assigned to these mandatory classes as theyenrolled. Both classes were taught by the same instructor, the third author of thisstudy. Among the 20 participants in the experimental group, 8 were male studentsand 12 were female students. In the control group composed of 19 students, 10 weremale students and 9 were female students. This number of participants represents thetypical size of enrolment in this college course and commonly encountered samplesize in social science and educational research studies.

Instrumentation

Word sorts, activities and assessment tools aligned with word study instruction were utilisedor adapted from the text, Words Their Way (Bear et al., 2004). Because of the age and per-ceived developmental spelling level of study participants, the Upper Level Spelling Inventory(p. 311) was employed to assess student levels of orthographic knowledge. This inventoryserved as a pre-test and post-test measure and includes a list of 40 words specifically dedicatedto the key stage-related spelling features detailed in word study research (Henderson &Beers, 1980) typically pertinent to fifth-grade level and beyond. The selected inventoryand accompanying analysis tools (feature guide and classroom composite) provided inWords Their Way (Bear et al., 2004) were used to analyse students’ orthographic knowl-edge specific to the letter-name alphabetic, within word pattern, syllables and affixes, andderivational relations stages of spelling development.It is essential to use instruments with good reliability and validity to ensure that we base

our research findings as well as instructional and policy decisions on instruments thatmeasure what we purport to measure. Additionally, because we use the instruments priorto and after the research intervention to gauge changes in student knowledge, it isespecially critical that the instrument is reliable; because with reliable instruments, wecan be sure that changes in test scores reflect changes in student knowledge rather thanany instability in the instrument itself. The Centre for Research in Educational Policy atthe University of Memphis conducted an extensive reliability and validity study of WordsTheir Way inventory and found a high reliability for the Upper Level Spelling Inventory.Cronbach’s alpha yielded an overall reliability estimate of .91. Test–retest reliabilityranged from .82 to .89. Additionally, the instrument has evidenced good validity. Whenused to predict performance on California Standardized Tests 4months later, the predictivevalidity coefficients achieved a high of .65. In summary, on the basis of the data in theirreport, the Words Their Way Upper Level Spelling Inventory is a reliable instrument anda valid predictor of student achievement.

Procedure

Before the 5-week word study intervention began, administration of the Upper Level SpellingInventory took place on the same day for both the control group and the experimental group.Each word from the inventory list was read aloud, followed by a sentence containing thatword in context and repeated once again in isolation before proceeding to the next word.All students were told that they would receive full credit for participation and that they shouldmake an attempt to spell every word correctly. The instructor explained that inventory results

WORD STUDY 437


would help her more fully plan appropriate spelling and vocabulary instruction duringthe remainder of the course. Participants were further informed that they wouldcomplete the same assessment 5weeks later to help the instructor evaluate the effective-ness of her teaching. According to the prescribed core course curriculum, vocabularyinstruction took place during the intervention period for both the control and theexperimental groups. However, a 5-week word study intervention took place for theexperimental group during course time typically devoted to independent review ofcourse learning and opportunities for students to seek additional support or clarificationduring individual or small-group teacher–student conferences, which was what thestudents in the control group did, as the control group was designed to receive the‘business-as-usual’ treatment.A Spelling-By-Stage Classroom Organization Chart (Bear et al., 2004, p. 327) was used

to plan the experimental group’s word study instruction. In addition to using this chart, themean pre-test score for the experimental group determined that the majority of the studentsin the experimental group were in the syllable-juncture level of spelling development. Typ-ical spellers at this stage are between the ages of 8 and 18 years, in Grades 3–8, and have acorresponding stage of reading and writing at the intermediate level. Examples of typicalspelling errors at this stage include the following: hoping for hopping, atend for attend,confusshun for confusion, plesure for pleasure, capchur for capture or hocky for hockey.Video implementation of a sample sort aligned with the syllable-juncture level furtherillustrates word study exploration appropriate for this level of spelling development(see Appendix E and http://winmedia.ecu.edu/itconsult/sunr/wordssort.wmv). Therefore, inthe experimental group, instruction took place concerning consonant doubling, commonsuffixes and past tense endings in sorts and word hunts. Students examined open andclosed syllables, syllable stress in homographs, variant spellings in unaccented finalsyllables, accent words, words that end in the el, er and cher spellings, and prefixes.In addition, there was an instructional focus on the relationship between spelling andmeaning and the importance of using spelling patterns to decode and analyse wordmeanings during real reading experiences.During the 5-week word study intervention, both the experimental group and the control

group met twice weekly for 50 minutes according to the normal course schedule.Experimental group’s word study instruction (taught during the period when students inthe control group were given time for independent review of course learning) was designedspecifically to meet the needs of its students and focused on word sorting meant to bolstertheir recognition and identification of spelling patterns. The instructor extended thisinstruction to the strategic level as she modelled the application of such recognition andidentification across all course learning. The control group did not experience the wordstudy intervention; instead, during the same course time, they maintained regularvocabulary activities included in the course’s core curriculum. Appendices A–E more fullydescribe the content of the experimental group’s word study intervention, core curriculumvocabulary instruction provided for both groups, and the pre-assessment/post-assessment.All core curriculum vocabulary instruction for both groups was completed during the firstweek of the study’s duration.After the 5-week word study intervention period ended, the Upper Level Spelling

Inventory was readministered on the same day with both the control group and theexperimental group. The assessment was delivered in the same manner as the first, and asecond feature guide was used for scoring and analysis. The resulting scores were recordedon a second classroom composite chart.



http://winmedia.ecu.edu/itconsult/sunr/wordssort.wmv

Data analyses

The sum of the total number of words spelled correctly and the total number of featuresspelled correctly was recorded for each student’s pre-test and post-test scores on a finalclassroom composite spreadsheet. In addition to this score, the total feature number ofbases, roots and derivatives that each student spelled correctly was included as aspreadsheet variable to gauge growth in orthographic knowledge. These scores, along withgroup information, were entered into a database using SYSTAT Grad Pack, version 10(SYSTAT Software, 2002) for statistical analyses.First, we compared the two groups’ pre-test scores and found no statistically significant

difference (t= 0.551, df= 37, p= .59). Further, Levene’s test for equality of variancesindicated equal variance on the two groups’ pre-test scores, F= .632, p= .432. Becausethe pre-test scores of the two groups were not statistically different from each other andtheir variances are equal, the assumptions for the use of gain score analysis were met.Therefore, we conducted a gain score analysis to compare the growths of the experimentalgroup versus the control group. A gain score for each student was calculated by subtractinghis/her pre-test score from post-test score. That is, gain score = post-test score� pre-testscore. An independent samples t-test was then used to compare the gain scores of the wordstudy group and the control group to examine whether there was a significant differencebetween the gains of the two groups. The conventional type-I error rate of .05 (α= .05)was used as the criterion for the judgement of statistical significance throughout this study.

Results

The research hypothesis for this study was that the students who were taught orthographicstrategies through the use of word study instruction (Bear et al., 2004) would show a sta-tistically higher improvement in orthographic knowledge documented by Upper LevelSpelling Inventory scores as compared with those in a control condition. Pre-test scoresfrom the Upper Level Spelling Inventory were obtained for both the experimental groupand the control group. The control group’s mean pre-test score was 95.84, with a standarddeviation of 17.86, which placed this group’s average level of word knowledge at the mid-dle to late syllables and affixes stage of spelling development. The experimental group’smean pre-test score was 98.65, with a standard deviation of 13.78. According to WordsTheir Way (Bear et al., 2004), these pre-test scores for the experimental group documentedtheir average level of word knowledge at the same late syllables and affixes stage ofspelling development. Table 1 provides the two groups’ pre-test scores, whereas Figure 1visually depicts the similarities in the distributions of the two groups’ pre-test scores. It isevident that before the word study intervention there was no significant difference in theaverage levels of orthographic knowledge between the experimental group and thecontrol group.Following the 5-week period of word study instruction with the experimental group, an

Upper Level Spelling Inventory post-test was completed by both the experimental groupand the control group. The control group’s mean post-test score was 96.58, whereas theexperimental group achieved a mean score of 109.90 (see Table 1).The experimental group’s orthographic knowledge post-test scores suggest that these

students have become members of a different population than those in the control group,whom they very much resembled 5weeks earlier. Figure 2 portrays the amount of change

WORD STUDY 439


from pre-test to post-test for each participant in the control group, whereas Figure 3provides a picture of the amount of change from pre-test to post-test for each participantin the experimental group. For the control group, the lines connecting the pre-test andpost-test scores remain relatively ‘flat’, indicating little or no change between the pre-testand post-test scores. In contrast, most of the lines for the experimental group rise, signallingan increase from the pre-test to the post-test. However, a definitive conclusion cannot bebased on visual observation alone. A t-test comparing the gain scores of the two groups

Table 1. Upper Level Spelling Inventory pre-test, post-test and gain scores by group.

n Pre-test (SD) Post-test (SD) Gain (SD) t* p

Experimental 20 98.65 (13.78) 109.90 (14.98) 11.25 (6.41) 6.85 <.001

Control 19 95.84 (17.86) 96.58 (19.38) .74 (2.38)

Note: SD, standard deviation.*t-test was used to compare the gain scores of the experimental group and the control group.

Control

GROUP

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

05101520 5 10 15 20

Figure 1. Pre-test score distribution by group.

PRETEST50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Figure 2. Change from pre-test to post-test for control group.



was employed to investigate whether the visual observation represented a true difference be-tween the amount of gains of the experimental group and the control group.To investigate whether the difference in teaching approach resulted in a significant

difference on gain scores for the experimental and the control groups, an independent samplest-test was conducted on the gain scores between the two groups. The results of the t-teststrongly suggest a significant difference on the spelling assessment gain scores between thetwo groups (t=6.85, p< .001). The Welch t was reported because it is the correct t-statisticto report when the two groups have unequal variances. Table 1 and Figure 4 provide acomparison of the gain scores between the two groups, numerically and graphically.

Discussion

In keeping with the developmental education literature’s recommendation that multipleteaching approaches offer the greatest promise for struggling students (Morelli, 2006;

PRETEST60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Figure 3. Change from pre-test to post-test for experimental group.

Control

GROUP

-10

0

10

20

0481216Count

4 8 12 16Count

Figure 4. Results on gain scores by group.

WORD STUDY 441


Russell, 2008), the authors of this study sought to assist a group of college studentsenrolled in a developmental reading course by bolstering their orthographicknowledge through word study learning experiences as described in Words Their Way(Bear et al., 2004). This approach offered students engaging hands-on word sortingactivities that led to conclusions about how spelling patterns generalised across whatthey read and wrote.Results indicate that this word study intervention significantly increased the ortho-

graphic knowledge of study participants within a short time. This intervention pro-duced an effect that generalised to words not encountered in course sessions, asdocumented by Appendices A–E. The experimental group’s post-test mean scoreof 109.90, with a standard deviation of 14.98, placed the average level of ortho-graphic knowledge for these students at the early to middle derivational relationsstage, which is an advanced level of spelling development as compared with thepre-test level at the middle to late syllables and affixes stage. The growth that tookplace during this intervention period was significant and suggested that college stu-dents enrolled in developmental reading courses may excel rapidly when providedwith consistently appropriate explicit word study instruction based on their develop-mental level of orthographic knowledge. This conclusion aligns with findingsdocumenting the effectiveness of the word study approach in multiple grade-levelschool and nonschool settings (Abbott, 2001; Beckham-Hungler & Williams, 2003;Bloodgood & Pacifici, 2004; Fresch, 2000/2001; Greenberg et al., 2006; Massengill,2006; Shaw & Berg, 2008; Shaw & Berg, 2007; Williams & Hufnagel, 2005;Williams & Lundstrom, 2007; Williams & Phillips-Birdsong, 2006; Williams et al.,2009). Additionally, this approach benefits the orthographic knowledge of students regardlessof their age (Henderson, 1990; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Templeton & Bear, 1992).Readers are cautioned when generalising the findings of this study. Although the

pre-test performance indicated that the orthographic knowledge of the two groupsof students was equal, there still could be additional factors that made the twogroups unequal. For example, the two classes of students may have different moti-vational levels. Additionally, even though extra caution was taken by the instructorto treat the two groups equally, a differential treatment may still have taken placeunconsciously; in other words, the instructor may, to a certain degree, haveunintentionally put more effort in teaching the students in the experimental groupthan in the control group.The authors of this study intend to further explore the notion that bolstering the

orthographic knowledge of college students in developmental reading coursespositively impacts their reading behaviours (Henderson & Beers, 1980) andacademic achievement. A follow-up study is in development to examine the effectsof longer-term word study instruction, not only on the orthographic knowledge butalso on additional outcomes such as students’ overall course grade and readingcomprehension.The implications of this study and the findings to be gained from follow-up research are

noteworthy for several reasons. Because the word study approach employed in theseinterventions is appropriate for all students, regardless of age or setting, educators mayconsider the value of assessing orthographic knowledge as a determiner of spelling andreading ability throughout students’ educational experiences at elementary, secondaryand postsecondary levels, as well as in adult literacy programmes. ‘All learners of writtenEnglish’ (Bear et al., 2007, p. 5), inclusive of the students who participated in this study,



progress through the same levels of spelling development, varying only in terms of acqui-sition rate. Thus, findings from this research suggest that teachers of struggling students, re-gardless of their setting or age, who bolster orthographic knowledge through systematic andappropriate word study instruction, may see improvement, not only in students’reading behaviours but also in their ability to remember what they have learned.The engaging and motivational nature of the word study approach encourages transferto students’ reading behaviours, as well as improvement of long-term memory retrieval– both beneficial for individuals who have experienced previous academic failure(Mulholland, 2002; Viise & Austin, 2005).In conclusion, Templeton and Morris (2001) suggest that century-old ideas about

the learning, teaching and assessment of spelling must be ‘reconceptualized’ to considerthe many facets of literacy linked with orthographic knowledge. Abbott (2001)elaborates further:

In light of recent research on spelling development, the reliability of spelling generalizations,and the importance of spelling’s link to other literacy skills, extended word study might bethe key component needed to help students improve word recognition, increase writing skills,and remember their spelling words after Friday’s spelling test (p. 12).

The findings documented in this intervention study with college students enrolled in adevelopmental reading course and the future research to follow support the notions thatTempleton, Morris and Abbott suggest. Indeed, as Boylan (2009) argues, ‘Postsecondaryinstitutions must serve the students they have, not those they wish they had’ (p. 20).Bolstering orthographic knowledge via the word study approach may potentially serve as a‘tipping point’ for struggling college students, allowing them to move beyond debilitatingrecollections of ‘memorising for Friday and forgetting by Monday’ to critically thinkingabout words and the worlds that they have the potential to unveil.

References

Abbott, M. (2001). Effects of traditional versus extended word-study spelling instruction on students’orthographic knowledge. Reading Online, 5(3). Available from: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/abbott/index.html

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way (3rd edn). Columbus, OH:Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnston, F. (2007). Words their way (4th edn). Columbus, OH:Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Beckham-Hungler, D. & Williams C. (2003). Teaching words that students misspell: Spelling instruction andyoung children’s writing. Language Arts, 80, 299–309.

Bennett-Kastor, T. (2004). Spelling abilities of university students in developmental writing classes. Journal ofCollege Reading and Learning, 35, 67–82.

Bloodgood, J.W. & Pacifici, L.C. (2004). Bringing word study to intermediate classrooms, The Reading Teacher,58, 250–263. doi:10.1598/RT.58.3.3.

Boylan, H.R. (2009). Targeted intervention for developmental education students (TIDES). Journal ofDevelopmental Education, 32, 14–23.

Fresch, M.J. (2000/2001). Using think-alouds to analyze decision making during spelling word sorts. ReadingOnline, 4(6). Available from: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/ fresch/index.html

Ganske, K. (2006). Word sorts and more: Sound, pattern, and meaning explorations, K-3. New York: GuilfordPublications.

WORD STUDY 443


http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/ fresch/index.html

http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/ fresch/index.html

Greenberg, D., Rodrigo, V., Berry, A., Brinck, T. & Joseph, H. (2006). Implementation of an extensive readingprogram with adult learners. Adult Basic Education, 16, 81–97.

Henderson, E.H. (1990). Teaching spelling (2nd edn). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Henderson, E.H. & Beers, J. (Eds.) (1980). Developmental and cognitive aspects of learning to spell. Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.Invernizzi, M. & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental spelling research: A systematic imperative. Reading Research

Quarterly, 39, 216–228. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.4.Kitz, W. & Nash, R. (1992). Testing the effectiveness of the project success summer program for adult dyslexics.

Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 3–24. doi I:10.1007/BF02654936.Massengill, D. (2006). Mission accomplished… it’s learnable now: Voices of mature challenged spellers using a

word study approach. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 420–431.doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.5.6.McCabe, R. (2003). Yes we can: A community college guide for developing America’s unprepared. Washington,

DC: Community College Press.McCusker, M. (1999). Effective elements of developmental reading and writing programs. Community

College Review. Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_2_27/ai_63323070/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

Morelli, M.E. (2006). Developmental reading, achievement, and persistence of African American communitycollege students. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.

Mulholland, R. (2002). Using high interest materials to engage secondary students in reading. Reading Online,6(3). Available from: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/Mulholland

Paulson, E.J. (2006). Self-selected reading for enjoyment as a college developmental reading approach. Journal ofCollege Reading and Learning, 36, 51–58.

Russell, A. (2008). Enhancing college student success through developmental education. American Association ofState Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/pmaug08.pdf

Shaw, D.M. & Berg, M.A. (2007). Word study intervention at the local jail. Paper presented at the National ReadingConference, Austin, TX.

Shaw, D.M. & Berg, M.A. (2008). Effects of a word study intervention on spelling accuracy among low-literateadults. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2, 131–139.

SYSTAT Software (2002). SYSTAT grad pack (version 10) [computer software]. Richmond, CA: SYSTATSoftware Inc.

Templeton, S. & Bear, D. (Eds.) (1992). Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy:A memorial Festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (2001). Reconceptualizing spelling development and instruction. Reading Online,5(3). Available from: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/templeton/index.html

Thomas, D.R. & Zumbo, B.D. (2012). Difference scores from the point of view of reliability and repeated-measures ANOVA: In defense of difference score for data analysis. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 72, 37–43.

Viise, N.M. & Austin, O.F. (2005). Can adult low-skilled literacy learners assess and discuss their own spellingknowledge? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 402–414. doi:10.1598/JAAL.48.5.4.

Williams, C. & Hufnagel, K. (2005). The impact of word study instruction on kindergarten children’s journal writ-ing. Research in the Teaching of English, 39, 233–270.

Williams, C. & Lundstrom, R. (2007). Strategy instruction during word study and interactive writing activities.The Reading Teacher, 6, 204–212. doi:10.1598/RT.61.3.1.

Williams, C. & Phillips-Birdsong, C. (2006). Word study instruction and second-grade children’s independentwriting. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 427–465. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3804_3.

Williams, C., Phillips-Birdsong, C., Hufnagel, K., Hungler, D. & Lundstrom, R.P. (2009). Word study instructionin the K-2 classroom. The Reading Teacher, 62, 570–578. doi:10.1598/RT.62.7.3.



http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/templeton/index.html

http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/templeton/index.html

Appendix A: Content of experimental group’s word study intervention

Session Instruction/activities (duration: 10–15minutes)

1 The first day of instruction began with a modelled word sort for R-controlled words. Using athink-aloud process, the teacher modelled an R-controlled vowel sort. After sorting additionalwords, student/teacher discussion explored how ER is the most common way to spell an R-controlled ending. It was concluded that OR and ER endings are typically agent wordsrepresenting people who do things (Bear et al., 2004, pp. 219–220). Following this sort,students/teacher discussed a Words Their Way strategy for analysing an unfamiliar word byexamining its morphemic unit. Students were then provided with a handout including strategysteps and practised using the strategy in textbooks from different university courses. (SeeAppendix B for strategy/handout details.)

2 Instruction consisted of modelling the process for sorting words by their prefix. The studentsobserved this process and then completed their own suffix sort in pairs. Discoveries ofsimilarities in spelling and meaning were discussed.

3 Students used various course textbooks and located words containing base words. Prefixes orsuffixes were also highlighted. Students then examined their morphemic units and discussedpossible meanings of unfamiliar words.

4 Students recorded words from their word lists onto index cards and sorted these words by partsof speech and according to subject area.

5 Students were randomly divided into groups of 4 and engaged in the base word/suffix sorts:changing Y to I (Bear et al., 2004, p. 239).

6 Students remained in small groups to sort words with –el and –le endings and discussed insightsand observations.

7 and 8 Students sorted a list of words by prefixes and then played Prefix Spin in random groups of 2 and4 (Bear et al., 2004, pp. 243–244).

9 and 10 Students focused on spelling–meaning sorts and sorted words from the course packet vocabularylist according to base words and derived (suffixed) words. Each base word was matched with itsderivatives. Students then discussed how the words were similar in meaning and how the soundchanges when a suffix is added (Bear et al., 2004, p. 245).

11 Students (in both experimental and control groups) completed a final Upper Level SpellingInventory composed of the following 31 words – switch, smudge, trapped, scrape, knotted,shaving, squirt, pounce, scratches, crater, sailor, village, disloyal, tunnel, humour, confidence,fortunate, visible, circumference, civilization, monarchy, dominance, correspond, illiterate,emphasise, opposition, chlorine, commotion, medicinal, irresponsible and succession (Bear etal., 2004, p. 311).

Appendix B: Strategy for analysing morphemic units of unfamiliar words(Bear et al., 2004, p. 221)

Sequential step Here’s what to do…

1. Examine the word for meaningful parts – base word, prefixes or suffixes.

a. If there is a prefix, take it off first.

b. If there is a suffix, take it off second.

(Continues)

WORD STUDY 445


c. Look at the base to see if you know it or if you can think of a related word (a word thathas the same base).

d. Reassemble the word, thinking about the meaning contributed by the base, the suffixand then the prefix. This should give you a more specific idea of what the word is.

2. Try the meaning in the sentence; check to see if it makes sense in the context of thesentence and the larger context of the text that is being read.

3. If the word still does not make sense and is critical to the meaning of the overall passage,look it up in the dictionary.

Appendix C: Content of core curriculum vocabulary activities

Session Instruction/activities (duration: 35minutes)

1. A student/teacher discussion examined the significance of 15 frequently used prefixes and 24frequently used suffixes. Students were provided with a handout including these prefixes andsuffixes (see Appendix D for handout details) and were encouraged to study the prefix and suffixmeanings throughout the semester to prepare for a summative vocabulary assessment consisting of100 words randomly selected from a 300-word vocabulary list in their course packet information.In addition, class discussion explored use of the prefix and suffix meanings to be assessed in three25-word vocabulary quizzes that would take place throughout the semester. The words on thesequizzes were randomly selected from the 300-word list in course packet information. Students inthe control group were explicitly informed that knowing the meanings of these particular prefixesand suffixes, as well as the 300 vocabulary words, would aid in their ability to comprehendcomplex text in their future studies at the college level. Three vocabulary quizzes and a summativevocabulary assessment were administered to all students (experimental and control) in multiple-choice format. Students were required to select the correct definition of a word given four choices.

Appendix D: Prefix/suffix handout details

Fifteen frequently occurring prefixes

Stauffer, R.G., Teaching reading as a thinking process. New York: Harper & Row.

Prefix Meaning(s)

ab- away, from, off

ad- at, to, toward

be- make, against, to a great degree

com- with, together, in association

de- separation, away, opposite of, reduce, from

dis- opposite of, apart, away, not

en- cause to be, put in or on

ex- from, out of, former, apart, away

in- into, in, within

Appendix B (Continued)

(Continues)



in- not

pre- before in place, time, rank, order

pro- before, forward, for, in favour of

re- again, back

sub- under, beneath, subordinate

in- not, the opposite of, reversal

Twenty-four frequently occurring suffixes

Thorndike, E.L., The teaching of English suffixes. New York: Teachers College.

Suffix Meaning (s) Example

-able capable of being allowable

-age act of marriage

-al have the nature of causal

-an one/who, relating to librarian

-in

-ian

-ance state of being brilliance

-ant person or thing that acts claimant

-ary of or pertaining to alimentary

-ate cause to be activate

-ence state or quality of being congruence

-ent one who recipient

-er relating to beater

-ful having much, tending to colourful

-ic pertaining to, resembling heroic

-etic

-ical of, like, pertaining to monarchical

-ion act of, state or condition affirmation

-tion

-ation

-ish having the nature of dragonish

-ity quality, state or condition of being adaptability

-ty

-ive tending or disposed to meditative

-less without, having no aimless

-ment state of being, act of admonishment

-ness quality, state or condition of being fairness

-or person or thing that does conqueror

-ous having, abounding in delirious

-y pertaining to, causing loamy

Appendix D (Continued)

WORD STUDY 447


Appendix E: Video implementation – syllable-juncture sample sort


The word sort featured in this video begins as an open sort (Bear et al., 2007, p. 56), mean-ing that the student was not given initial teacher directions about how to sort. The studentsorted initially in a way that made sense to her. Because the categories noted later did notinitially emerge, the instructor eventually suggested them for a closed sort (Bear et al.,2007, p. 56) as the word study experience unfolded. The steps in the subsequent text areindicated for closed sorting.

doctor sailor cider cancer director clover fibre

stellar paper honour regular anger circular danger

tutor author border banner grocer neighbour actor

tailor barber litter governor colour blister mayor

crater editor senior cluster visitor freezer solar

1. Sort the words by part of speech (noun and adjective) and type (agent, concrete, abstract, comparative andscientific). Unknown or unsure words go in the miscellaneous column.

2. Examine any patterns in word endings. What principles can you draw from the evidence?

Nouns Adjectives

Agent Concrete Comparative Scientific

Abstract Miscellaneous

Terry S. Atkinson is an Associate Professor of reading education at East Carolina University (ECU),Greenville, NC. She serves in ECU’s College of Education.

Guili Zhang is an Associate Professor of research at East Carolina University. She serves in EastCarolina University’s College of Education.

Shannon F. Phillips is a former student of all the three professors while enrolled in Master of Arts inEducation – Reading Education Programme – and currently serves as a second-grade classroomteacher at Knightdale Elementary, Knightdale, NC.

Nancy Zeller is a Professor of research at East Carolina University (ECU). She serves in ECU’sCollege of Education.

Received 10 May 2012; revised version received 30 July 2013.

Address for correspondence: Terry S. Atkinson, Department of Literacy Studies, EnglishEducation and History Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.E-mail: [email protected]




using word study instruction with developmental college students

Documents