Being able to read and
spell are two essential literacy skills which children acquire during their
primary schooling. Indeed, there is
often a close correlation between children’s ability to read and spell (i.e.,
children who are good readers are typically good spellers and likewise poor
readers are typically poor spellers).
Despite reading and spelling being similar skills (in that they are both
literacy skills), they are different in several respects. For example, of the two, spelling is
typically harder; while reading requires the recognition of printed word(s),
spelling requires the production of word(s).
In addition, in English, the writing system exhibits bidirectional
asymmetry; that is, phoneme-to-grapheme
mapping is more ambiguous than grapheme-to-phoneme mapping (Fletcher-Flinn,
Shankweiler, & Frost, 2004). In
other words, there are more phonetically plausible ways to misspell words than
there are to misread them. Anyone who has seen children’s spelling errors,
or carried out an analysis of children’s spelling errors will understand
this. For example, the word ‘circle’ can
be spelt by children in a variety of interesting ways - serkul, sirkil, sircul,
sercil, circel, cricel, cricle, and many more….. Indeed, these different spelling errors
provide us with good insight into the skills and strategies children are drawing
upon as they attempt to spell (see McGeown et al., 2013). In contrast however, the number of different
ways in which the word ‘circle’ can be read (incorrectly) is fewer. As a
result, higher quality lexical representations (i.e., a better ‘visual’ image
of the word’s spelling pattern) are arguably more important for spelling than
for reading.
In a recent study, my collaborators and I
distinguished between two different types of reading and spelling strategies (phonological
and orthographic) using children’s reading and spelling errors and examined the
relationship between children’s (n = 172, aged 6-8) use of these strategies and
their performance on tests of word reading and spelling (words were chosen to
be unfamiliar to children).
A phonological strategy reflected a greater
dependence on using letter-sound rules (e.g., reading ‘pint’ to rhyme with
‘mint’ or spelling ‘tuna’ as ‘choona’), while an orthographic strategy
reflected greater use of the visual/letter information in words (i.e., errors were orthographically (i.e.,
visually) similar to the target word, e.g., reading
‘wart’ as ‘want’ or spelling ‘knife’ as ‘knif’). We assessed how use of these strategies
correlated with irregular and standardised word reading and spelling
performance.
In reading, while a phonological reading strategy
correlated strongly and positively with word reading skills, an orthographic
reading strategy was inversely related with word reading skills. Therefore, making use of letter-sound
information seems to be a much more effective way to read unfamiliar (including
irregular) words, than attempting to recognise the word as a visual whole. On the other hand, for spelling, greater use
of an orthographic strategy was positively correlated with spelling
performance, while use of a phonological strategy was unrelated to spelling
performance.
So what are the educational implications of this research? Firstly I would argue that children should be
taught and supported to use a phonological strategy to read; that is, be given
phonics instruction so that they can learn to effectively use letter-sound
rules to read new and unfamiliar words. This
approach will be more effective than teaching children to recognise words as
visual wholes and encouraging them to use a strategy based on this. However,
the results for spelling were different; children need to have good ‘visual’
representation of the word to be able to spell it correctly. How do they achieve this? One way is through reading; once a child has
read a word several times within text they will then have a better visual
representation of that word and therefore be better placed to accurately spell
it. Therefore good reading skills can
precede good spelling skills; ensuring children receive guidance in effective
reading strategies is therefore crucial.
Correct
spelling: circle, tuna, knife
Examples of
orthographic spelling error: cricle,
tunea, knif
Examples of
phonological spelling error: serkul,
choona, niyf
References:
Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., Shankweiler, D., & Frost, S. J.
(2004). Coordination of reading and spelling in early literacy development: An examination of the
discrepancy hypothesis. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 617–644.
McGeown, S. P., Medford, E., &
Moxon, G. (2013). Individual differences in children’s reading
and spelling strategies and the skills supporting strategy use. Learning
and Individual Differences, 28, 75-81.
See
link for Teacher Summary Poster: “Children’s strategies for reading and
spelling irregular words”
https://edinburgh.academia.edu/SarahMcGeown/Summaries-for-teachers
No comments:
Post a Comment