strategies for integrating decoding and spelling instruction within an orthographic framework l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Strategies for Integrating Decoding and Spelling Instruction within an Orthographic Framework PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Strategies for Integrating Decoding and Spelling Instruction within an Orthographic Framework

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Strategies for Integrating Decoding and Spelling Instruction within an Orthographic Framework - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 392 Views
  • Uploaded on

Strategies for Integrating Decoding and Spelling Instruction within an Orthographic Framework. Kelly Robbins, Ph.D., University of Utah John Hosp, Ph.D., University of Iowa. Rationale: Why are you here?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Strategies for Integrating Decoding and Spelling Instruction within an Orthographic Framework' - armina


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
strategies for integrating decoding and spelling instruction within an orthographic framework

Strategies for Integrating Decoding and Spelling Instruction within an Orthographic Framework

Kelly Robbins, Ph.D., University of Utah

John Hosp, Ph.D., University of Iowa

rationale why are you here
Rationale: Why are you here?
  • Reading failure can be prevented with appropriate, intensive instructional intervention (Torgesen, 2001)
  • Often teachers do not receive training in orthography (writing system) (Moats, 2000)
    • Affects teachers’ ability to
      • Explain the orthography to students
      • Be savvy consumers of curricula
      • Create instructional framework/sequence

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

what will you learn
What will you learn?
  • Overview of decoding and spelling
    • Orthographic system
    • Cognitive processing
    • Developmental sequence
  • Relation between decoding and spelling
  • Strategies for applying orthographic framework for teaching decoding and spelling

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

decoding and spelling
Decoding and Spelling
  • Orthographic system
  • Cognitive processing
  • Developmental sequence

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

orthographic system venezky 1999 fry 2004 moats 2000
Orthographic System(Venezky, 1999; Fry, 2004; Moats, 2000)

Opaque alphabetic system

Writing system designed for fluent readers not novice speakers

Communicates sounds from speech

AND

Communicates meaning

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

orthographic system
Orthographic System

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

cognitive processing ehri 1978 1980 1991a 1991b 1992 ehri roberts 1979 ehri wilce 1987
Cognitive Processing(Ehri, 1978, 1980, 1991a, 1991b, 1992; Ehri & Roberts, 1979; Ehri & Wilce, 1987)

Orthographic

Syntactic

Phonological

Semantic

Added when print is learned

Originates from speech learning

WORD

Semantic

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

cognitive processing adams 1990 seidenberg mcclelland 1989

Semantic

Phonological

Orthographic

Cognitive Processing(Adams, 1990; Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

development adapted from bear invernizzi templeton johnston 2008 ehri 1998
Development(Adapted from Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston, 2008; Ehri, 1998)

Alphabet

Pattern

Meaning

Derivational relations spelling

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

phase 1
Phase 1
  • Prealphabetic Decoding
    • Knowledge of print
    • Phonological awareness
    • Visual identification of words (McDonald’s)
  • Preliterate-Phonetic Spelling
    • Phonological awareness
    • Early scribbles

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

phase 2
Phase 2
  • Partial Alphabetic Decoding
    • Letter-sound associations based on letter name
  • Early Letter Name-Alphabetic Spelling
    • Insecure grasp of grapho-phonemic correspondences resulting in incomplete spellings
    • Few memorized sight words in writing

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

phase 3 decoding
Phase 3 Decoding
  • Full Alphabetic Decoding
    • Decode on letter-by-letter basis with one letter corresponding to one sound
    • Ability to segment words into their component sounds
    • Vowels and consonant blends (/bl/)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

later phase 3 spelling
Later Phase 3 Spelling
  • Late Letter Name-Alphabetic Spelling
    • Letter-by-letter basis with one letter corresponding to one sound
    • Segment words into their component sounds
    • Words sounded out slowly with all phonemes detected (often include extra graphemes)
    • Disregard orthographic constraints (letter sequencing and position effects on spelling)
    • Many sight words included in writing

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

phase 4
Phase 4
  • Consolidated Alphabetic Decoding
    • Knowledge of common letter sequences representing sounds (syllables, affixes)
  • Within Word Pattern Spelling
    • Familiarity with common spelling patterns and rules (letter-doubling rules, silent e vowel marker/vowel teams)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

relation between decoding and spelling
Relation between decoding and spelling
  • Highly related
  • Distinguishing characteristics
  • Interdependence

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

highly related
Highly Related
  • Shared orthography
  • Cognitive processing
  • Developmental sequence
  • Correlational studies

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

highly related17
Highly Related

* (D )= decoding, (S) = spelling

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

highly related robbins hosp m hosp j flynn in preparation
Highly Related(Robbins, Hosp, M., Hosp, J., & Flynn, in preparation)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

*p<.01, ** p<.05

distinguishing characteristics
Distinguishing Characteristics
  • Spelling is more complex than decoding
    • Roughly 40 phonemes (sounds) and 70 graphemes (letter sequences)
    • Single phonemes have multiple grapheme sequence representations
      • /ō/ can be spelled O (“cold”), OA (“coat”), OE (“doe”), OW (“flow”), OUGH (“dough”)
    • Grapheme sequences have multiple phoneme matches
      • EA can be pronounced /ĕ/ as in “breath”, /ē/ as in “meat”, /ā/ as in “great” (Greenberg & et al., 1997)
  • Spelling requires greater precision than decoding (Perfetti, 1997)
    • Decoding = retrieval + recognition,
    • Spelling = retrieval + production

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

differences decoding moats 2000
Differences: Decoding(Moats, 2000)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

differences spelling ehri 1995
Differences: Spelling(Ehri, 1995)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

interdependence
Interdependence
  • Knowledge of word spellings has been shown to influence the number of phonemes detected in words (Ehri & Wilce, 1980)
    • /t/ in “pitch” vs. no /t/ if spelled as “pich”
  • Decoding requires knowledge of word spellings when identifying unfamiliar words (Stanovich, 1980)
  • Spellings of words are fixed in memory through both decoding and spelling experiences (Ehri, 1997; Perfetti, 1997)
    • Orthographic images of words can function as mnemonic devices for decoding (Ehri, 1980, 1998; Ehri & Wilce, 1980b)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

interdependence23
Interdependence
  • Spellings are verified through decoding (Ehri, 1997; Perfetti, 1997)
  • Instruction in spelling has resulted in improvements in decoding (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1990; Ehri & Wilce, 1987)
  • Instruction in decoding has resulted in improvements in spelling (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, and Mehta,1998, NRP, 2000)

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

strategies for applying orthographic framework
Strategies for Applying Orthographic Framework

Typical framework for decoding/spelling instruction

Strategies

Teach orthographic structure

Integrated

Strategic

Systematic

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

24

slide25

What often happens…

Not understood

Not systematic

Decoding and

spelling are treated as

separate subjects

Not strategic

Not integrated

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

what could happen
What could happen…
  • Think…
    • Structure
    • Integrated
    • Strategic
    • Systematic

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

slide27

What could happen…

Orthography understood

SYSTEMATIC

Decoding and

spelling are treated as

HIGHLY RELATED subjects

Decoding and spelling

instruction

INTEGRATED

STRATEGIC

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

strategy 1 systematically teach orthographic structure
Strategy 1: Systematically teach orthographic structure

Communicate to students that English MAKES SENSE and systematically teach the various influences on spelling patterns

**See Resources at end of presentation

strategy 2 integrate instruction continued
Strategy 2: Integrate instruction (continued)

National Reading Panel Report (2000)

  • identifies the relationship between spelling and decoding
  • recommends instruction integrate the two literacy areas for the greatest instructional impact
strategy 2 integrate instruction

Orthographic

Syntactic

Phonological

Semantic

Strategy 2: Integrate instruction

Students SEE CONNECTION between words spelled and words read

Semantic

strategy 2 integrate instruction continued31
Strategy 2: Integrate instruction (continued)
  • Spell words students are learning to decode
  • Look for spelling patterns students are learning in spelling when reading
  • Use the words students are learning in spelling in writing assignments across the curriculum
  • Define words that are unfamiliar in text and/or on spelling lists
strategy 3 strategic instruction
Strategy 3: Strategic instruction
  • Research has investigated a
    • Range of complexity in grapho-phonemic patterns (Ehri, 2000; Henderson & Templeton, 1986)
    • Developmental sequence of skills (Ehri, 2000, Henderson & Templeton, 1986) that can be used as a framework for identifying instructional level and developing instructional interventions
  • Identify range of grapho-phonemic knowledge that a student possesses
strategy 3 strategic instruction continued
Strategy 3: Strategic instruction (continued)

Identify strengths/weaknesses in specific grapho-phonemic patterns

  • Identify appropriate place to begin instruction
    • Specifically target needed grapho-phonemic patterns
    • Group students by needed grapho-phonemic pattern instruction
      • Provide small group instruction
strategy 4 systematic instruction
Strategy 4: Systematic instruction

Use a logical sequence (Fry, 2000; Blevins, 2006)

  • High frequency patterns
  • High contrast
  • Simple to complex
  • Teach short vowels and consonants together
    • Generate as many words early on as possible
adapted from bear invernizzi templeton johnston 2008 ehri 1998
(Adapted from Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston, 2008; Ehri, 1998)

Consonants

Short vowels,

Digraphs,

Blends

Alphabet

Pattern

Meaning

Long vowel patterns

Inflected endings,

doubling,

r-controlled

Suffixes, roots

36

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

summary
Summary
  • Overview of decoding and spelling
    • Orthographic system
    • Cognitive processing
    • Developmental sequence
  • Relation between decoding and spelling
  • Strategies for applying orthographic framework for teaching decoding and spelling

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

resources for teachers
Resources for Teachers
  • Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M., and Vachon, V. (2000). REWARDS: Reading excellence: Word attack and rate development strategies. Longmont, CO.
  • Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnston, F. (2008). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Bishop, M. (1986). The ABC’s and all their tricks. Mott Media, Fenton MI.
  • Fry, E.B., Kress, J.E. (2006). The reading teacher’s book of lists (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA.
  • Gunning, T. (2001). Building words: A resource manual for teaching word analysis and spelling strategies. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Moats, L. (2000). Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

slide44
Questions????

Kelly Robbins: krobbins.utah@gmail.com

John Hosp: john-hosp@uiowa.edu

Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010