1 / 44

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?.

armina
Download Presentation

Strategies for Integrating Decoding and Spelling Instruction within an Orthographic Framework

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Decoding and Spelling • Orthographic system • Cognitive processing • Developmental sequence Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  5. 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

  6. Orthographic System Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  7. 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

  8. Semantic Phonological Orthographic Cognitive Processing(Adams, 1990; Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989) Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  9. Development(Adapted from Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston, 2008; Ehri, 1998) Alphabet Pattern Meaning Derivational relations spelling Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Relation between decoding and spelling • Highly related • Distinguishing characteristics • Interdependence Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  16. Highly Related • Shared orthography • Cognitive processing • Developmental sequence • Correlational studies Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  17. Highly Related * (D )= decoding, (S) = spelling Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  18. Highly Related(Robbins, Hosp, M., Hosp, J., & Flynn, in preparation) Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010 *p<.01, ** p<.05

  19. 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

  20. Differences: Decoding(Moats, 2000) Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  21. Differences: Spelling(Ehri, 1995) Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. What could happen… • Think… • Structure • Integrated • Strategic • Systematic Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. Orthographic Syntactic Phonological Semantic Strategy 2: Integrate instruction Students SEE CONNECTION between words spelled and words read Semantic

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. (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

  36. Strategy 4: Systematic instruction (continued) (Fry, 2000)

  37. Strategy 4: Systematic instruction (continued) (Fry, 2000)

  38. Strategy 4: Systematic instruction(continued) (Fry, 2000)

  39. Strategy 4: Systematic instruction(continued) (Fry, 2000)

  40. Strategy 4: Systematic instruction(continued) (Fry, 2000)

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. Questions???? Kelly Robbins: krobbins.utah@gmail.com John Hosp: john-hosp@uiowa.edu Kelly Robbins & John Hosp, NASP 2010

More Related