A taxonomy of approaches to teach spelling - Springer Link

Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1991, pp. 117-130

A Taxonomy of Approaches to Teach Spelling Timothy E. Heron, Ed.D., 1,4 Beatrice A. Okyere, Ph.D., 2 and April D. Miller, M.A. 3

Accepted: September 28, 1990. Action Editor: Nirbhay N. Singh

Th& paper presents a comprehensive taxonomy for classifying major approaches to teach spelling. The Traditional Approach is based on linguistic theory, and is predicated on the assumption that there is regularity to the spelling of words in the English language. Many commercially-based spelling programs use the Traditional Approach. The Remedial Approach can be divided into four subcategories, two of which employ multisensory methods. Horn's remedial method combines elements of visualization, pronunciation, and spelling recall, whereas the phonovisual method is phonetically based, and stresses visual and auditory discrimination of letter sounds. Methods under the Specialized Approach can be considered discrete spelling interventions based on applied behavior analysis, direct instruction, spelling rules, cognitive behavior modification, peer tutoring, or computer applications. The authors'position is that the Specialized Approach offers the optimum combination of instructional efficiency and effectiveness consistent with the concept of the least restrictive alternative. We believe that self-correction is the best exemplar of this approach. KEY WORDS: remedial spelling; specialized spelling; spelling approaches; taxonomy; traditional spelling.

1professor, Department of Educational Services and Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, The University of Maine, Farmington, Maine. 3Doctoral Student, Department of Educational Services and Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4Correspondence should be directed to Dr. Timothy E. Heron, The Ohio State University, 356 Arps Hall, 1945 N. High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43210. 117

1053-0819/91/0300.0117506.50/09 1991 HumanSciencesPress, Inc.

118

Heron, Okyere, and Miller

INTRODUCTION Spelling, the formation of words through the sequential and meaningful arrangement of letters (Mercer & Mercer, 1989), is the process of encoding spoken utterances into written symbols (Breuckner & Bond, 1955; Hanna, Hodges, & Hanna, 1971). Spelling has also been defined as the ability to produce in written or oral form the correct arrangement-orthography-of letters. It is an important language arts skill, and it has been incorporated into the elementary curriculum since the formal beginnings of school. Although spelling receives somewhat less attention in the classroom today than it has received historically, it is still a vital part of the elementary program because teachers recognize that the ability to read, write, spell, and express one's thoughts accurately in oral and written formats is essential for a literate society (Hodges, 1987). Even so, the methods by which practitioners teach spelling, venerable as some of these methods might be, have not been field-tested exhaustively, although a growing body of literature on the effectiveness of several methods is emerging (Vallecorsa, Zigmond, & Henderson, 1985).

I Traditional 1 I Remedi1al I I Linguistic

I

)

Specialized

I

Teacher Directed

I (

.oIre ) I

I

Peer Mediated

i

Semi-Independent

Fig. 1. A taxonomy of spelling approaches showing the major orientations and methods to teach spelling.

1

Spelling Taxonomy

119

This paper provides an overview of the three major categorical approaches that are available to teach spelling. The taxonomy includes the Traditional, Remedial, and Specialized Approaches. Using a taxonomy of spelling approaches furnishes the conceptual framework for the classification of the various methodologies associated with this language arts skill (see Figure 1). Other techniques to teach spelling exist. For instance, using the dictionary and fixed word lists (Mercer & Mercer, 1989), test-study-test and study-test methods (Allred, 1984), and multisensory or task analytic approaches (Slingerland, 1971; Westerman, 1971) have been employed at one time or another to teach spelling. These methods were not included in the taxonomy because they (a) represented only a procedural variation of another approach, (b) combined two or more approaches, or (c) lacked sufficient empirical and methodological detail with respect to implementation.

TRADITIONAL APPROACH The primary method of teaching spelling is based on traditional practices (Graham, 1985). For example, the three major commercially-based traditional spelling programs used in schools today (i.e., Spell Correctly, Word Book, and Basic Goals in Spelling) are rooted in linguistic theory, meaning that instruction focuses on the phonological and morphological aspects of expressive production (Hammill & Bartel, 1990; Hammill, Larsen, & McNutt, 1977). Linguistic spelling is based on the notion that there is regularity in phoneme-grapheme correspondence (Mercer & Mercer, 1989). Specifically, linguistics is predicated on the assumption that 90% of the word pool that constitutes students' spelling at the elementary level is regular (Myers & Hammill, 1990). The words used in commercial texts are usually selected from word lists chosen from child or adult written language, or from common words in written vocabulary. Generally, students learn basic word patterns, spelling similarities pertaining to sound sequence, and generalization patterns. Linguistic instruction concentrates on one phoneme or sound at a time, and lessons are introduced beginning in first and second grades. A traditional approach to spelling varies the instructional format daily. Depending on the spelling series, students proceed through a series of lessons that focus on sound-symbol (phoneme-grapheme) relationships, word patterns, rhyming patterns (rat, cat, sat), nonrhyming patterns (pet, peg, pep), vowel-changing patterns (pat, pet, put), syllabication, dictionary skills, synonyms, word usage, and enrichment. Generally, students are not taught spelling rules directly; instead, teachers set the occasion for them

120

Ileron, Okyere, and Miller

to observe generalizations and similarities. The commercially-based programs are "leveled," meaning that a succession of textbooks, workbooks, and skill sheets are available that provide for controlled introduction of frequently used words, integration of spelling, reading, and writing, proofreading, and dictionary skills (Lovitt, 1989; Wallace, Cohen, & Polloway, 1987). Methodologically, students are given a list of 10-20 words from the textbook on Monday. Next, the words from the list are written three times. Then, on Tuesday, the words are written in sentences. Students alphabetize the words on Wednesday or practice word patterns. On Thursday, students use the words to write a story, syllabicate the words, or they have a dictionary skills lesson. As a rule, commercially-based approaches are designed so that daily lessons, averaging 15-20 minutes, culminate in a weekly test on Friday (Lovitt, 1989; McNeish, 1985). Regardless of the students' performance on the weekly test, a new list of words is introduced the following week, and the cycle is repeated. With the linguistic approach, the speller concentrates on producing word spellings by taking into consideration one phoneme at a time and applying the knowledge of sound-symbol relationships (Wallace et al., 1987).

REMEDIAL APPROACHES

There are at least four remedial methods that can be used, depending upon the particular needs of the student.

The Fernald Method The Fernald (1943) method is used with students who have severe spelling and reading problems because this method involves the integration of spelling and reading directly. The Fernald method stresses wholeword learning since words are taught as a "unit" without phonic instruction, and the word is selected from stories that the student dictates. It also focuses on distinct recognition of word form, visual imagery, and repetitive writing. Since students see, hear, and trace the words by using the four sensory modalities-visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile-this approach has been dubbed the VAKT method. Fernald suggests that her 8-step sequence for teaching spelling be followed precisely during all instructional phases.

Spelling Taxonomy

121

The Gillingham-Stillman Method

The Gillingham-Stillman (1970) method uses an alphabetic system and emphasizes sound blending, repetition, and drill. Correspondence between letters and sounds is taught by using a multisensory approach (Mercer & Mercer, 1989). Polysyllabic words (e.g., encouragement) are taught syllable by syllable, and all words are sequenced carefully based on difficulty. While not a direct instruction approach per se, elements of DI are evident insofar as the teacher initially models correct pronunciation and spelling of words, and the student then imitates the model. Both the Fernald and Gillingham-Stillman methods assume that building vocabulary (spelling and reading) must proceed systematically from words that the student knows to words that the student needs to learn. In the Gillingham-Stillman method, however, the teacher selects words painstakingly, and they are presented in a sequential order, whereas in the Fernald method, the student chooses the words he or she wants to master. Finally, instruction in the Gillingham-Stillman method focuses on individual syllables, letters, and sounds, while Fernald's method stresses whole words as a unit.

Horn Method

The Horn (1954) method combines elements of spelling recall, written orthography, word pronunciation, visualization, and proofreading. Students proceed sequentially through each of these steps. If an error is made at any step, the entire process is repeated until the student spells the word correctly without any mistake. For example, if the student is to spell the word "middle," he or she would be directed to pronounce the two parts of the word, "mid-die." Next, the student would look at each part of the word and say it again. The third step involves the student's spelling the word orally letter by letter, visualizing it, and respelling the word orally. Finally, the student would write the word and check it for accuracy. If the student made an error spelling the word letter by letter [m-i-d-l-e] (step 3), he or she would return to the first step (i.e., pronunciation) and begin the process over. Words generally are selected from adult frequency lists.

Phonovisual Method

The phonovisual method emphasizes visual and auditory discrimination of letter sounds. Students are introduced to consonant and vowel sounds by using pictures of familiar images (e.g., a for apple). This method

122


is a phonetically-based procedure that stresses the association between the visual image and the letter sound (Schoolfield & Timberlake, 1960).

SPECIALIZED APPROACHES

Several specialized strategies and tactics have proved effective in improving students' spelling ability. Some of the tactics are modifications or adaptations of the traditional spelling approach, and they have been effective in increasing students' spelling scores (Smith, 1989). However, no clear guidelines exist concerning which of these strategies should be chosen over others. The decision to use any of these specialized tactics depends on the magnitude of the spelling difficulty, the time that the teacher has to devote to spelling instruction, and whether a teacher-directed, peer-mediated, or semi-independent procedure is desired. For instance, if the student possesses several spelling skills and can follow directions, and student behavior warrants a teacher-directed method, then modeling, time-delay, spelling rules, distributed practice, or task variation might be employed (Smith, 1989). If the teacher wants to integrate peers into the spelling program, flow lists using tutoring formats or cover and compare procedures can be introduced. Finally, if the teacher prefers that the student work semi-independently, selfquestioning, directed rehearsal, computers, or self-correction might be used. Teacher-Directed Methods

Modeling Modeling involves telling, showing, or performing a skill for a student to imitate, and it has been proven to be very effective in the teaching of academic subjects (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). For children who have failed to learn to spell through the traditional procedures, a modeling strategy might be beneficial. Basically, the teacher provides an oral and written model of the spelling word, and the child imitates the model by spelling the word aloud and writing it (Mercer & Mercer, 1989; Smith, 1989). Immediate feedback is given to the student. The student receives retraining on words that are not spelled correctly. This procedure is repeated until the student is able to spell and write the word without the teacher's model. Procedurally, modeling can be accomplished in two ways: (a) by providing the student with the correct model, or (b) by imitating the student's error and then providing the correct model (Kauffman, Hallahan, Haas, Brame, & Boren, 1979). Preliminary data seem to indicate that im-

Spelling Taxonomy

123

itating the student's misspelling, coupled with simultaneous presentation of the correct spelling, is a more effective modeling procedure, especially for nonphonetic words (Kauffman et al., 1979). Stated another way, contingent imitation of a spelling error, followed by correct modeling of a spelling, has been demonstrated to be more effective in increasing current performance, as well as delayed recall for students with mild handicaps (Jobes, 1975; Kauffman et al., 1979).

Time Delay The constant time delay procedure is an instructional method that transfers stimulus control from a controlling stimulus (i.e., a prompt that signals the correct response) to a new stimulus (i.e., a target response). The controlling stimulus is paired with the new stimulus, and the amount of time between their presentations is increased systematically. The interval between the presentations of the task request (new stimulus) and the teacher's model/prompt (controlling stimulus) is systematically increased until the student emits the correct response before the controlling stimulus is withdrawn. Stevens and Schuster (1987) used a constant time delay procedure to determine the relative effectiveness of a 5-second time delay on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of written spelling with an l 1-year-old student with severe spelling problems. Instructional sessions were divided into 30 trials (3 blocks of 10 trials across 15 unknown words). After the first presentation of 10 trials at zero time delay, the subsequent 2 sets of trials were presented with a 5-second delay. The teacher presented a word and said, "Spell [S +]." This prompt was followed by a 5-second pause if the student did not respond correctly to the tutor's printed model. Results indicated that the 5-second delay produced improved learning of the words. The student spelled 93% of the target words during acquisition, and maintained the words after two months, even without review during that interim. Also, the correct spelling of words generalized across persons, settings, and tasks.

Spelling, Rules Teaching spelling rules is designed to enable students to generalize their spelling to similar patterns. The best technique is to select a few frequently used rules and incorporate them into the spelling program. Previously learned rules and their application should be reviewed periodically to increase retention and generalization. For example, after learning a

124

general rule would apply the spelling selected for through the


such as "i" comes before "e" except after "c", the individual the rule when spelling unfamiliar words. Other rules governing of plurals, affixes, possessives, irregular endings, and words their linguistic pattern (cool, fool, pool) could be introduced use of direct instruction techniques (cf. Carnine, 1983).

Distributed Practice

Spelling authorities have recommended distributed rather than mass practice based on considerable evidence that students spell more words correctly when the number of words to be learned is divided into smaller sets and students practice them each day (E. Horn, 1960; Smith, 1989). Reith, Axelrod, Anderson, Hathaway, Wood, and Fitzgerald (1974), for instance, used a reversal design to show the effects of distributed practice on spelling scores with a 13-year-old student. Specifically, words were issued under two conditions: (a) all words were distributed at the beginning of the week, and practice exercises and testing occurred daily; and (b) words were distributed each day (5 words per day), and daily practice and testing occurred only on these words. Results showed that distributing the words produced better spelling scores than if all the words were issued at the beginning of the week.

Task Variation

In a task variation procedure, the teacher mixes learned and unlearned words during instruction (Dunlap & Dunlap, 1987). Essentially, spelling words that the student has mastered are commingled with words that the student is yet to master. For instance, in a set of 10 words, 5 might be unknown and 5 might be mastered from previous sessions. Singh, Farquhar, and Hewett (1991) state that task variation can be accomplished in two ways: by interspersal presentation and distributed trial. During interspersal presentations, known and unknown words are presented alternately, and corrective feedback is issued to students when words are spelled incorrectly. Distributed trial is synonymous with distributed practice mentioned above. Task variation procedures have produced increased levels of student spelling performance (Neef, Iwata, & Page, 1977, 1980), promoted generalization (Neef et al., 1980), and improved motivation (Dunlap, 1984).

Spelling Taxonomy

125

Peer-Mediated Methods

Flow Lists When using a flow list, spelling words that are mastered (i.e., spelled correctly over 2-3 consecutive days) are removed from the list and new words are added. Flow lists use a replacement option that ensures that the students do not spend time on practicing words that they have already mastered (Smith, 1989). In a peer-mediated version of this procedure, a tutor would move words in and out of the system as criterion is reached. As words are learned, they exit the system and new words are introduced. A peer-tutoring format can be arranged to accommodate the flow list procedure (cf. Cooke, Heron, & Heward, 1983; Heron, Heward, Cooke, & Hill, 1983; Heward, Heron, Ellis, & Cooke, 1986). Students would practice spelling words orally or in writing, receive prompts for initial misspellings (e.g., "Try again."), and feedback and praise for correct performance. Embedded within each peermediated session would be testing and charting components.

Copy-Cover-Compare In this method (Graham & Miller, 1979), the student looks at the word presented by a peer and says it. The student then writes the word twice while looking at the word (copy), covers the word and writes it again (cover), and finally checks the spelling visually (compare). This strategy is usually used with slow learners and students who have good short-term memory, but weak long-term memory. Emphasis is placed on repeated practice, including the proofing and correcting of errors quickly. In many respects, this method uses a match:to-sample procedure to ensure that the orthography of the letters is correct and can be incorporated within a peertutoring format effectively. Semi-independent Methods

Self-Questioning Self-questioning is an important component of cognitive training. In cognitive training, students first are taught specific information and then are taught a strategy that focuses their attention so that they can apply the information correctly (Smith, 1989). Wong (1986) described a cognitive strategy of spelling. In training students how to spell, they were taught to break words into syllables, to

126


examine the structure of words, and to notice how spelling changes according to the part of speech of each word. The students were then taught the self-questioning strategy, which basically enabled the student to ask questions about a word that they were supposed to spell. For instance, questions were asked such as, "Do I know this word?," "How many syllables do I know in this word? .... Shall I spell out the word?" and "Do I have the right number of syllables down?" Wong's (1986) results indicate that student spelling performance improved considerably.

Directed Rehearsal Directed rehearsal can be used as an academic instruction strategy, especially with skills that have not been acquired completely. For instance, with directed rehearsal for spelling, the student might be required to write five sentences using the words that were misspelled on the test. Or, alternatively the student might have to write the correct spelling of the word several times. Correct phonetic spelling or dictionary work might also be required. Even though it is an intrusive procedure, it reduces the spelling errors of students when it is incorporated in assignments (Lenz, Singh, & Hewett, 1991).

Computer Within the last 10 years, an increasing number of researchers have directed their attention toward developing computer-based spelling programs (Hasselbring, 1982; Fisher, 1984). According to Wallace et al. (1987), computerized spelling programs are based on the principles of active student response, modeling and imitation, feedback, and reinforcement. Also, computerized programs can be used successfully on either an independent or semi-independent level, allowing the student to pace his or her instruction.

Self-Correction Self-correction for spelling is a teaching procedure in which students learn to spell by (a) comparing their misspelled words to a model (matchto-sample), (b) identifying specific types of spelling mistakes (e.g., omissions, repetitions, transpositions), (c) correcting their mistakes by themselves through the use of proofreading marks, and (d) writing the correct sequence of letters for the word (Ganschow, 1983; McNeish, 1985;

Spelling Taxonomy

127

Okyere, 1990; Okyere & Heron [in press]). Self-correction enables students to focus specifically on letter sequence. Students have ample opportunities to respond (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984) since they make their own corrections and have immediate feedback on their spelling efforts by comparing their word to the model (Van Houten, 1980). Procedurally, in a self-correction method, a sheet of paper is divided into 5 columns. A list of words (e.g., 10 words) is encoded in Column 1. Columns 2, 3, 4, and 5 are blank. Column 1 is then folded back so that the student cannot see the words that have been written. The words then are dictated by another person (or heard by listening to an audiotape). The student writes (prints) the words in Column 2. Upon completion, Column 1 is exposed, and each word is self-corrected by using a match-tosample procedure. One of four previously learned proofreading marks is used to highlight the type of spelling error (e.g., ^ = insert a letter(s), 0 = to omit a letter(s), / = wrong letter, - = reverse the two letters). After the student self-corrects each word, he or she writes it correctly in Column 3 while looking at Columns 1 and 2. The student says the word aloud before it is spelled, and he or she says each letter of the word as it is spelled. If the student spells the word correctly, a check mark is made in Column 3. Columns 4 and 5 are reserved for repeating the sequence a second time. Research has established the value of the self-correction as a learning device. Self-correction has been heralded as the most important single factor contributing to achievement in spelling (Allred, 1984; Christine & Hollingsworth, 1966; Ganschow, 1983; Horn, 1947; McNeish, 1985; Okyere, 1990; Schoephoerster, 1962; Wallace et al., 1987).

CONCLUSION Spelling has been, and will continue to remain, a component of the total language arts curriculum. Its importance is evidenced by the three major approaches and related strategies that have been developed to teach it. The taxonomy presented in this paper provides teachers and practitioners with a way to (a) classify the principal spelling approaches and (b) arrange specialized approaches consistent with concepts inherent in a least restrictive model (i.e., approaches that proceed from a most to a least restrictive alternative). In the taxonomy, this process is represented by the teacher-directed, peer-mediated, and semi-independent categories. The goal of education is to produce knowledgeable and independent learners, and approaches and strategies that foster this goal should be encouraged. Since corrective feedback strengthens targeted responses, permitting students to compare their spelling with accurate models (Gerber,

128

lleron, Okyere, and Miller

1986), we believe that the specialized approaches, especially self-correction, offer the best combination of functionality, practicality, and social validity. Teachers should use self-correction procedures regularly with their students, and teacher-educators should ensure that this method, along with the other specialized methods and approaches, is given due emphasis in the preservice curriculum.

REFERENCES /Mired, R. A. (1984). What research says to the teacher: Spelling trends, contents and methods. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Breuckner, L., & Bond, G. (1955). Diagnosb and treatment of learning difficulties. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Carnine, D. (1983). Direct instruction: In search of instructional solutions for educational problems. In Interdisciplinary voices in learning disabilities and remedial education (pp. 160). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Christine, R., & Hollingsworth, P. (1966). An experiment in spelling. Education, 86, 565-567. Cooke, N. L., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1983). Peer tutoring: Implementing classwide programs in the primary grades. Columbus, OH: Special Press. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Dunlap, G. (1984). The influence of task variation and maintenance tasks on the learning and affect of autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child P~ychology, 37, 41-64. Dunlap, L. K., & Dunlap, G. (1987). Using task variation to motivate handicapped students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19, 16-19. Fernald, G. (1943). Remedial techniques in bas& school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fisher, F, (1984). Spelling by speech synthesis: A new technology for an old problem. Annual Review of Learning Disabilities, 2, 150-151. Ganschow, L. (1983). Teaching strategies for spelling success. Academic Therapy, 19, 185-193. Gerber, M. M. (1986). Generalization of spelling strategies by LD students as a result of contingent imitation/modeling and mastery criteria. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 530-537. Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1970). Remedial trahling for children with specific difficulty in reading, spelling, and penmanship (7th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service. Graham, S. (1985). Evaluating spelling programs and materials. Teaching Exceptional Children, 17, 299-303. Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1979). Spelling research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 12, 1-16. Greenwood, J. C., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic achievement. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, and J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Hammill, D. D., & Bartel, N. R. (1990). Teaching dffldren with learning and behavior problems (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Hammill, D. D., Larsen, S., & McNutt, G. (1977). The effects of spelling instruction: A preliminary study. The Elementaly School Journal, 78, 67-72. Hanna, P., Hodges, R., & Hanna, J. (1971). Spelling structure and strategies. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Hasselbring, T. (1982). Remediation of spelling problems in learning handicapped students through the use of microcomputers. Educational Technology, 22, 15-16.

Spelling Taxonomy

129

Heron, T. E., Heward, W. L., Cooke, N. L., & Hill, D. S. (1983). Evaluation of a classwide tutoring system: First graders teach each other sight words. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 137-152. Heward, W. L., Heron, T. E., Ellis, D., & Cooke, N. k (1986). Teaching first grade peer tutors to use praise on an intermittent schedule. Education and Treatment of Children, 9, 5-15. Hodges, R. E. (1987). American spelling instruction: Retrospect and prospect. Visible Language, 21, 55-75. Horn, E. (1954). Teaching spelling. Washington, DC: American Research Association. Horn, E. (1960). Spelling. Encyclopedia of educational research. New York: MacMillan. Horn, T. D. (1947). The effects of the corrected test on learning to spell. The Elementary School Journal, 47, 277-285. Jobes, N. K. (1975). The acquisition and retention of spelling through imitation training and observational learning with and without feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Haas, K. Brame, T., & Boren, R. (1979). Imitating children's errors to improve their spelling performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 33-38. Lenz, M., Singh, N. N., & Hewett, A. E. (1991). Overcorrection as an academic remediation procedure: A reappraisal. Behavior Modification, 15, 64-73. Lovitt, T. C. (1989). Introduction to learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. McNeish, J. (1985). Effects of self-conection on acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling words with learning disabled students. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (1989). Teaching students with learning problems (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Myers, P. I., & Hammill, D. D. (1990). Learning disabilities: Basic concepts, assessment practices, and instructional strategies. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1977). The effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sightreading words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 738. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1980). The effects of interspersal training versus high density reinforcement on spelling acquisition and retention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 153-158. Okyere, B. A. (1990). Effects of self-colrection on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling words with elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus. Okyere, B., & Heron, T. E. (in press). Use of self-correction to improve spelling in regular education classrooms. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), A school psychologist's interventions for regular educators. National Association of School Psychology Monograph. Reith, H., Axelrod, S., Anderson, R., Hathaway, F., Wood, K., & Fitzgerald, C. (1974). Influence of distributed practice and daily testing on weekly spelling tests. Journal of Educational Research, 68, 73-77. Schoephoerster, H. (1962). Research into variations of the test-study plan of teaching spelling. Elementary English, 39, 460-462. Schoolfield, L., & Timberlake, J. (1960). The phonovisual method. Washington, DC: Phonovisual Products. Singh, N. N., Farquhar, S., & Hewett, A. E. (1991). Enhancing the spelling performance of learning disabled students: Task variation does not increase the efficacy of directed rehearsal. Behavior Modification, 15, 271-282. Slingerland, B. H. (1971). A multi-sensory approach to language alls for specific language disability childlen: A guide for plimary teachers. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service. Smith, D. D. (1989). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

130


Stevens, IC B., & Schuster, J. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure on the written spelling performance of a learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 9-16. Vallecorsa, A. L., Zigmond, N., & Henderson, L. M. (1985). Spelling instruction in special education classrooms: A survey of practices. Exceptional Children, 52, 19-24. Van Houten, R. (1980). Learning through feedback. New York: Human Sciences Press. Wallace, G., Cohen, S. B., & Polloway, E. A. (1987). Language arts. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Westerman, G. S. (1971). Spelling and writing. San Rafael, CA: Dimensions. Wong, B. u L. (1986). A cognitive approach to teaching spelling. Exceptional Children, 53, 169-173.