UNDERSTANDING INSTRUCTIONAL SPELLING PRACTICES OF THIRD AND FOURTH

GRADE TEACHERS: AN EMBEDDED MULTIPLE CASE STUDY

by

Krista Rae Tennefoss

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University

2021

2

UNDERSTANDING INSTRUCTIONAL SPELLING PRACTICES OF THIRD AND FOURTH

GRADE TEACHERS: AN EMBEDDED MULTIPLE CASE STUDY

by Krista Rae Tennefoss

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2021

APPROVED BY:

Stacey Bose Ed.D., Committee Chair

Lucinda Spaulding Ph.D., Committee Member

3

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this embedded, explanatory multiple case study was to explain how internal and

external factors shape the instructional spelling practices of third and fourth grade educators in

Delaware. Internal factors were personal characteristics, such as content knowledge and

pedagogy, that have been developed by past experiences and trainings. External factors were

environmental and behavioral elements that vary between schools. The theory guiding this study

was the social cognitive theory as it provided a theoretical framework that helped to explain

influencers behind teacher choices. As an embedded case study, the main units of analysis were

the schools (N = 3) and the sub-units of analysis were the educators (n = 16). Purposeful

sampling from schools in Delaware helped to ensure maximum variation. Each of the two public

schools included teachers (n = 4), a principal (n = 1), and literacy expert (n = 1). The private

school included two teachers, one principal, and one literacy expert. Data collection involved

surveys, classroom observations, lesson plans, interviews, and curriculum reviews. Thematic

analysis was used to help code and identify themes within and across cases. Findings supported

spelling instruction as a complex interaction between the following factors: (a) teacher content,

training, and pedagogy, (b) curriculum, (c) funding source expectations (e.g., standardized

assessments), (d) district expectations (e.g., levels of teacher autonomy), and (e) student

knowledge and behavior.

Keywords: spelling instruction, teacher instruction, multilinguistic spelling approach,

orthographical knowledge, morphological knowledge, phonological awareness.

4

Dedication

There is an adage, “It takes a village to raise a child.” In this case, it has taken a village for

me to complete this doctoral journey. This is dedicated to friends, Sonya and Rachel, who

opened their houses and provided a quiet oasis, a place to filter out life’s stressors so that

schoolwork could be completed. This is dedicated to my family—my parents, siblings, in-

laws, and extended family—who talked to others about me as if finishing my doctorate was

a foregone conclusion. When life’s events happened, you provided support to continue this

journey. This is dedicated to my employers, Shelley and Stan, who gave me the flexibility

to prioritize and finish what needed to be completed. This is dedicated to my grandparents,

Millard and Lura, who though you are no longer with us, instilled within your grandchildren

a belief that serving God and pursuing education were worthwhile endeavors. My village

extends well beyond the confines of this page. So, this is also dedicated to those who, while

you go unnamed, asked how school was going and, somehow, refrained from the glassy-

eyed look as I explained the minute (and oh-so-fascinating) facets of spelling instruction.

5

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Stacey Bose. You encouraged me when progress seemed

stalled and provided insight (and questions) when concepts were not fully formed. I never

thought it would take me this long but thank-you for staying with me.

I would like to thank Dr. Spaulding for encouraging me to keep qualitative research when I

simply wanted to call a tactical retreat back into the comfortable world of numbers and statistics.

I would also like to thank my second coder and research assistant, Kanina. Without you, I would

still be staring at my computer screen telling myself I should work on my study, “But, oh look!

First, I must watch this video about baby squirrels…” or something equally ridiculous.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my Lord, my God. It was not uncommon to go to bed

unsure of future steps or uncertain of how concepts connected, only to awake in the morning

with a new understanding. I am reminded of Proverbs 3:5-6, “Trust in the Lord with all your

heart; lean not on your own understanding. In all of your ways acknowledge him and he will

make your paths straight.”

6

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................3

Dedication ........................................................................................................................................4

Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................5

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................12

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................13

List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................14

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................16

Overview ............................................................................................................................16

Background ........................................................................................................................16

Historical Background ...........................................................................................17

Social Background .................................................................................................18

Theoretical Background .........................................................................................19

Situation to Self..................................................................................................................20

Problem Statement .............................................................................................................22

Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................23

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................23

Research Questions ............................................................................................................25

Definitions..........................................................................................................................27

Summary ............................................................................................................................28

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................29

Overview ............................................................................................................................29

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................29

7

................................................................................................................................32

Environmental and Behavioral Influences .............................................................33

Personal Influences ................................................................................................42

Related Literature...............................................................................................................46

Benefits of Spelling Instruction .............................................................................47

Development of English Orthography ...................................................................49

Development of Spelling Instruction .....................................................................52

Spelling as a Multilinguistic Task..........................................................................54

Spelling Acquisition Theories................................................................................59

Research-based Spelling Practices .........................................................................62

Teacher’s Spelling Beliefs and Practices ...............................................................68

Factors Guiding Instruction ...................................................................................70

Schools as Institutions............................................................................................71

Summary ............................................................................................................................73

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..................................................................................................74

Overview ............................................................................................................................74

Design ................................................................................................................................74

Qualitative Design .................................................................................................74

Case Study Approach .............................................................................................75

Research Questions ............................................................................................................78

Setting ................................................................................................................................78

Curricular Decisions ..............................................................................................79

Teacher and Student Demographics ......................................................................80

8

Washington Elementary School .............................................................................81

Jackson Elementary School ...................................................................................82

Lincoln Preparatory School ...................................................................................83

Participants .........................................................................................................................83

Procedures ..........................................................................................................................85

The Researcher's Role ........................................................................................................87

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................88

Fresch’s Survey ......................................................................................................89

Interviews ...............................................................................................................91

Artifacts..................................................................................................................98

Observations ..........................................................................................................99

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................100

Thematic Analysis ...............................................................................................100

Cross Case Analysis Between Schools ................................................................102

Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................103

Credibility ............................................................................................................103

Dependability and Confirmability .......................................................................104

Transferability ......................................................................................................104

Ethical Considerations .....................................................................................................104

Summary ..........................................................................................................................105

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ...................................................................................................107

Overview ..........................................................................................................................107

Participants .......................................................................................................................107

9

Washington Elementary School ...........................................................................108

Jackson Elementary School .................................................................................117

Lincoln Preparatory School .................................................................................125

Results ..............................................................................................................................131

Washington Elementary School: Report One ......................................................132

Jackson Elementary: Report Two ........................................................................137

Lincoln Preparatory School: Report Three ..........................................................140

Thematic Models .................................................................................................145

Thematic Model for Lincoln Preparatory: Report Four .......................................145

Thematic Model for Washington and Jackson Elementary: Report Five ............150

Research Questions ..............................................................................................160

Summary ..........................................................................................................................178

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION..............................................................................................179

Overview ..........................................................................................................................179

Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................179

Discussion ........................................................................................................................183

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory .....................................................................183

Personal (Teacher) Influence ...............................................................................185

Behavioral and Environmental Influence of Students .........................................188

Behavioral and Environmental Influence of the Institution .................................190

Implications......................................................................................................................198

Theoretical ...........................................................................................................198

Empirical Implications .........................................................................................200

10

Practical Implications...........................................................................................202

Delimitations and Limitations..........................................................................................204

Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................206

Summary ..........................................................................................................................207

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................209

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................264

Appendix A: Fresch’s (2003) Spelling Survey ................................................................264

Appendix B: E-mail Permission to Reprint Fresch’s (2003) Survey ...............................270

Appendix C: Demographic Questionnaire .......................................................................271

Appendix D: Fresch’s Survey Divided by Spelling Approach or Activity .....................272

Appendix E: Examples of Fresch’s (2003) Survey with Means, Modes, and Ranges ....273

Appendix F: Observation Form .......................................................................................274

Appendix G: Ashley’s Observation Form (Example) .....................................................275

Appendix H: Emma’s Observation Forms (Example) .....................................................279

Appendix I: Artifacts from Emma’s Independent Spelling Lessons ...............................281

Appendix J: Fieldwork Observation Log .........................................................................282

Appendix K: Educator Codes per School ........................................................................284

Appendix L: Example of NVivo Coding for Washington Before Pile Compilations .....285

Appendix M: Coding Amounts from NVivo After Pile Compilation .............................287

Appendix N: NVivo Interview Examples with Codes or Memos ...................................288

Appendix O: Lincoln Thematic Model Reflective Memoing ..........................................289

Appendix P: IRB Initial and Extension Approval ...........................................................293

Appendix Q: General Letter to Public School District ....................................................294

11

Appendix R: Teacher and Literacy Expert Interview Protocol .......................................295

Appendix S: Principal Interview Protocol .......................................................................297

Appendix T: Consent Form for Teacher ..........................................................................298

Appendix U: Consent Form for Principals ......................................................................300

Appendix V: Consent Form for Literacy Expert .............................................................302

Appendix W: Recruitment Letter for Private School Principal .......................................304

Appendix X: Recruitment Letter for Public School Principal .........................................305

Appendix Y: Recruitment Letter for Teachers ................................................................306

Appendix Z: Recruitment Letter for Literacy Experts .....................................................307

12

List of Tables

Table 1: Student Racial and SES Demographics .......................................................................... 81

Table 2: School and Teacher Information .................................................................................... 81

Table 3: Description of Participant Sample .................................................................................. 84

Table 4: Mean Scores of Schools on Specific Questions from Fresch’s (2003) Survey ............ 164

Table 5: Teachers’ Self-Identified Effective Activities and Classroom Evidence ..................... 167

13

List of Figures

Figure 1: Adapted Model of Bandura’s (1986) Triadic Reciprocal Causation Model. ................ 32

Figure 2: Model of Possible Influencers of Instructional Practices. ............................................. 33

Figure 3: Example of Structured Word Inquiry ............................................................................ 64

Figure 4: Influences Behind Instructional Choices for Spelling at Lincoln Preparatory School 146

Figure 5: Influences Behind Instructional Choices for Spelling at Washington and Jackson .... 151

Figure 6: Model of Influencers of Instructional Practices. ......................................................... 199

14

List of Abbreviations

American Reading Company (ARC)

Copy, Compare, and Check (CCC)

Data Driven Decision Making (DDDM)

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF)

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Jackson Literacy Expert (JLE)

Jackson Principal (JP)

Jackson Teacher (JT)

Lincoln Teacher (LT)

Lincoln Literacy Expert (LLE)

Lincoln Principal (LP)

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

Mental Graphemic Representations (MGR)

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

National Commission on Writing (NCW)

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED)

Professional Learning Community (PLC)

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

Structured Word Inquiry (SWI)

15

Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT)

Triple Word Form Theory (TWFT)

Washington Literacy Expert (WLE)

Washington Principal (WP)

Washington Teacher (WT)

16

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

Spelling is often thought of as the one subject stuck within the 1950s. A weekly list is

handed out, dictionary work is completed, and a test is taken on Friday. This may be partly the

reason why, when asked if spelling mattered, Ickles-Dunbar (2006) answered, “Yes, for the

moment, but only as a relic of pre-computer social status” (p. 5). Yet, research supports the

opposite of that statement. Direct spelling instruction has been linked with improved reading,

writing, and spelling (Cordewener, Hasselman, Verhoeven, & Bosman, 2018; Foorman &

Petscher, 2010; Graham & Herbert, 2011; Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Martin-Chang,

Ouellette, & Madden, 2014; Wolter & Dilworth, 2014). Like all subjects, an educator’s

instructional methods and classroom activities will affect the spelling achievement of students

(Foreman & Petscher, 2010; Ouellette, 2010). Therefore, this study focuses on how teachers

approach spelling instruction and the reasons behind their given approach. Chapter One provides

a brief overview of the study and describes the background, situation to self, problem and

purpose statements, significance of study, research questions, and definitions.

Background

The framework for this study is nested within historical, social, and theoretical contexts.

Historical methods of spelling instruction are still evident within many present-day spelling

classrooms (Daffern, 2017b; Fresch, 2007; McNeill & Kirk, 2014). For instance, teachers may

assign homework requiring students to write their spelling words five times each. Yet, the past,

along with the present, helps to shape teacher perceptions and practices. Therefore, the social

background introduces current spelling literature, and the theoretical context utilizes Bandura’s

(1986) social cognitive theory to review possible influencers of spelling instruction.

17

Historical Background

Spelling has been an integral part of American education since the 1700s (Hodges, 1987).

Similar to John Locke’s philosophical understanding of realism, educators of that time believed

children entered the classrooms as blank slates (Knight, 2006) and were viewed as incapable of

reasoning (Fresch, 2007). Therefore, teachers used an alphabetic approach, which focused on

the spelling of sounds and syllables. Students had to remember the syllabic spellings, such as co-

hes-ive, but would not be given the word’s definition (Hodges, 1987). This view started to

change when Horace Mann became the Secretary of Education of Massachusetts in 1837. He

believed instead of being a mixture of syllables and sounds, words should be taught with

meaning (Hodges, 1987). Whole word memorization was encouraged. Eventually whole word

memorization became the main method to teach spelling (Hodges, 1987).

Over the years, reliance solely upon whole word memorization (i.e., visual memorization

of word) has become widely criticized (Adoniou, 2014; Daffern, 2017b; Herrington & Macken-

Horarik, 2015; McNeill & Kirk, 2014). Indeed, spelling instruction has become a topic of much

debate. For instance, researchers frequently suggest students complete variations of cover, copy,

compare (e.g., Harris et al., 2017; Hochstetler, McLaughlin, Derby, & Kinney, 2013). In cover,

copy, and compare (CCC), students look at the spelling word, copy it, and compare the two

words. Studies consistently support CCC as an effective activity for spelling acquisition (see, for

example, Hochstetler et al., 201; Jaspers et al., 2012; Joseph et al., 2012).

In contrast to activities such as CCC, McNeill and Kirk (2014) stated, “The most

effective spelling instruction teaches spelling as a linguistic (rather than visual) ability by

facilitating key skills that underlie spelling development” (p. 536). A growing body of research

18

lends support to a multilinguistic approach of spelling (e.g., Daffern, 2017b; Daffern &

McKenzie, 2019; Garcia, Abbott, & Berninger, 2010; Herrington & Macken-Horarik, 2015;

Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009; Schiff, Ben-Shushan, & Ben-Artzi, 2017). A

multilinguistic approach begins with English being a morphophonemic orthography (Garcia et

al., 2010). In other words, the spelling of words depends upon morphological, phonological, and

orthographical components. Morphology includes etymology, root words, stems, and affixes.

Phonology deals with spoken sounds. Orthography includes spelling rules and the mapping of

sounds onto paper (McMurray & McVeigh, 2016).

Social Background

Researchers have reported that elementary educators may not have the necessary

linguistic knowledge to teach using a metalinguistic approach (Adoniou, 2014; Daffern, 2017b;

Daffern & McKenzie, 2019; Herrington & Macken-Horarik, 2015; Moats, 2014). Yet, other

factors may affect spelling instruction. Schools are considered a type of institution (Glatter,

2015). Therefore, schools are historically viewed as “the product of social rather than economic

pressures” (Suddaby, 2013, p. 379). Social pressures may include organizations (e.g., the

Department of Education), people (e.g., political leaders, taxpayers, or school board members),

and educational laws (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act; Glatter, 2015).

The increased privatization of schools has resulted in economic pressure becoming a

component of educational systems (Meyer & Rowen, 2006). With the rise of school choice and

charter schools, traditional public schools face the possibility of losing revenue as students leave,

while the expenditure, stays the same (Ni, 2009). Hence, instructional practice by teachers is not

solely a reflection of their own preferences. Rather, instruction is also informed by state and

19

federal requirements, district policy, principal expectations, teacher accountability, and socio-

cultural factors (Meyer & Rowan, 2006).

Theoretical Background

Since the focus of this study was the spelling instructional practices of teachers,

Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory was used as the theoretical framework. Social

cognitive theory is based upon triadic reciprocality (Bandura, 1977), in which choices are seen as

a result from the interplay of personal, behavioral, and environmental influences. For instance,

teachers may be in the middle of a lesson. As questions are asked or puzzled faces are observed,

teachers may use their cognitive knowledge and teaching skills (i.e., behavior) to adapt the

lesson and re-explain. If the administration (i.e., environment) expects a specific type of activity,

such as cooperative groups, group work may also be incorporated. Thus, cognition, behavior,

and environment affect instructional practice.

Previously, researchers explored the effect of teacher self-efficacy in relation to student

achievement (e.g., Leader-Janssen & Rankin-Erickson, 2013; Walan & Rundgren, 2014).

Teacher self-efficacy is a cognitive belief about whether teachers believe they can or cannot

successfully teach a topic. In this study, instead of looking at a specific component of the social

cognitive theory, a broader view of the interactions between influences were explored within the

confines of spelling instruction. Therefore, a picture of triadic reciprocality in educational

settings was clarified. Specifically, environmental, behavioral, and personal factors were

explored to determine how they shape teacher instruction.

Previous quantitative and mixed method studies primarily utilized teacher surveys to

understand spelling instruction. The surveys typically focused on how spelling is taught and

teacher content knowledge (e.g., Doyle, Zhang, & Mattatall, 2015; Fresch, 2007; Graham et al.,

20

2008; McNeill & Kirk, 2014). With instructional practice, however, there is an interaction

between teacher beliefs and school environment (Boschman, McKenney, & Voogt, 2014;

Brownell et al., 2014; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Each teacher is one agent within an

organization. An understanding of the relationship between personal perceptions (e.g., content

knowledge, self-efficacy, etc.) and external factors (i.e., environmental and behavioral

influencers) produced a more holistic picture of spelling instruction.

Situation to Self

I am personally and professionally motived to conduct this study due to previous

experiences. I am an educator with an elementary and special education degree, and upon the

completion of this doctoral program, I will also be certified as a reading specialist. I have

worked for two public school districts and two private schools. Spelling originally became an

area of interest when a school district, where I previously worked, took spelling out of the

curriculum. Word work was completed, but teachers did not provide direct spelling instruction.

By the time students entered my fifth-grade classroom, they appeared to have weak

orthographical skills. My spelling mentality changed from an apathetic standpoint to a

proponent for spelling instruction.

I believe students learn how to spell most effectively when a multilinguistic approach is

utilized. A multilinguistic approach incorporates morphological, phonological, and

orthographical skills. When teaching spelling, I typically adhere to a constructivist paradigm.

Therefore, in keeping with the constructivist theories of Vygotsky (1994) and Piaget (1972),

spelling words and lists should be differentiated to accommodate various levels of

understanding. As a human instrument (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in this qualitative inquiry, I had

21

to be cognizant of my beliefs and put safeguards in place to separate my biased views from that

of the participants.

I hold several inherent philosophical assumptions. Understanding and communicating

my philosophical assumptions are important, because, as Höijer (2008) stated, “As researchers,

we construct our own material and then analyze what we ourselves have constructed” (p. 277).

Understanding my assumptions helped clarify the lens through which I conducted and analyzed

interviews (Höijer, 2008). Creswell (2013) stated four primary philosophical assumptions

include the following: ontology (nature of reality), epistemology (nature of knowledge), axiology

(nature of values), and methodology (type of method).

My philosophical beliefs generally align with a postpositivist interpretive framework.

Admittedly, I feel most comfortable dealing with statistical data and scientific methods. In the

context of this study, I uphold ontological, epistemological, and axiological tenets of

postpositivism. Therefore, since Yin’s (2018) text promoted a postpositivist approach, many of

his beliefs and scientific methodology were used to help support this study’s framework.

Furthermore, in alignment with postpositivism, ontologically, I believe, “A single reality exists

beyond ourselves, ‘out there’” (Creswell, 2013, p. 36). Epistemologically, I believe an

approximation or “fuzzy generalization” of reality becomes clearer as research is completed

(Bassey, 1999, p. 48). In this study, I took a peripheral role as a researcher (Creswell, 2013). As

the data was collected and analyzed, my axiological beliefs resulted in trying to control my

biases through memoing, data triangulation, and member checking.

Due to the qualitative nature of this study, the methodology had components of

postpositivism and pragmatism. Methodologically, postpositivism means, “deductive methods

are important, such as testing of theories, specifying important variable, [and] making

22

comparisons among groups” (Creswell, 2013, p. 36). However, akin to methodology of

pragmatism, this study was not approached with solely a quantitative or qualitative mindset.

Rather, pragmatically, I explored where the literature “guided” me and created this study based

on the research problem (Creswell, 2013). Consequently, while not a mixed methods study, I

had both quantitative and qualitative components to gain deeper insight.

Problem Statement

The problem is a disconnect between teachers’ beliefs about effective spelling instruction

and how they teach spelling (Fresch, 2007; Adoniou, 2014; McNeill & Kirk, 2014). To

compound the issue, teacher beliefs and content knowledge about spelling often diverge from

research (Daffern & MacKenzie, 2019; McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Moats, 2014). For example,

while researchers have supported using word work and direct instruction to reinforce spelling

abilities, teachers often treat spelling as a visual exercise and reinforce it with rote memorization

(Fresch, 2007; McNeill & Kirk, 2014). These gaps are concerning as spelling instruction

improves phonological awareness (Martins & Silva, 2006), word recognition skills (Good,

Lance, & Rainey, 2015; Goodwin & Perkins, 2015; Graham & Herbert, 2011), and reading

comprehension (Conrad, Harris, & Williams, 2013; Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Wolter &

Dilworth, 2014; Weiser, & Mathes, 2011). Since only 36% of fourth grade students in American

schools are considered proficient in reading (U.S. Department of Education, 2018), spelling

instruction is a current and necessary topic of study.

Researchers conducting studies identified the reasons for both gaps to be lack of teacher

training or resources (Daffern & McKenzie, 2019; Doyle et al., 2015; Fresch, 2007; McNeill &

Kirk, 2014). Few studies have further explored institutional factors and personal perceptions

shaping the beliefs and spelling instructional practices of elementary education teachers. A

23

multiple case study will allow a “real world perspective” of the instructional spelling decisions

from educators in three diverse schools to be analyzed thematically and explained (Yin, 2018, p.

14).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this embedded, explanatory multiple case study was to explain how

internal and external factors shaped how third and fourth grade educators in Delaware taught

spelling. For this study, internal factors were defined as personal characteristics (e.g., content

knowledge, self-efficacy, pedagogy, etc.) developed by past experiences and trainings. External

factors were environmental and behavioral characteristics within schools and classrooms (e.g.,

curriculum, administration, state and national regulations, student characteristics, etc.) that may

vary between educators. The theory guiding this study was the social cognitive theory (Bandura,

1986) as it provided a theoretical framework that helped to explain influencers behind teacher

practice.

Significance of the Study

Researchers often cite a lack of linguistic knowledge as a reason for the gap between

research-based spelling practices and the implementation of those practices (Graham et al., 2008;

Herrington & Macken-Horarik, 2015; Moats, 2014; Purvis, McNeill, & Everatt, 2016). Several

research-based activities include word work activities, teaching words with a multilinguistic

approach, and word sorts (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2012; Harris et al., 2017;

Treiman, 2018). Yet, in Anderson and Standerford’s (2012) study on agents of change, the

educators (N = 3) were provided instructional support and training on research-based practices in

spelling. Knowledge did not automatically transfer to practice. Rather, school policy, teacher

workload, and teacher beliefs hindered the implementation of the research-based spelling

24

practices (Anderson & Standerford, 2012). This study extends empirical knowledge by

specifically seeking to understand how various internal and external factors influence spelling

instruction. The influences behind instructional practice in spelling can then be contrasted with

influences of instructional practices in other subjects and other locations. Thus, this study may

provide a more in-depth understanding of teachers’ instructional practices in an elementary

education context.

This study utilized Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory for the theoretical

framework. A primary component of Bandura’s (1986) theory is triadic reciprocality, which

posits behavior is the result of the interplay between environmental, behavioral, and personal

influencers. This study went one step further and identified how specific research-based

environmental and behavioral factors (e.g., administration, curriculum, state policies, student

academic abilities, and student behavior) interacted with personal influencers (e.g., content

knowledge, self-efficacy, and pedagogical beliefs) to influence spelling instruction. Therefore,

Bandura’s (1986) theory was expanded to understand the relationship between specific factors

that helped guide instructional behavior.

When discussing educational research, Bassey (1999) stated, “Education research is

critical enquiry aimed at informing educational judgements and decisions in order to improve

educational action” (p. 39). Therefore, this study may also have several practical implications.

First, it may help specific schools and teachers where the research is taking place. By gaining an

understanding of what is currently happening, the teachers, schools, and districts can be provided

with specific recommendations to help improve and strengthen their spelling instruction, which

in turn, will help students to become better spellers and readers. In general, this study can help

25

inform educational policies and district expectations to further promote effective spelling

practices.

Research Questions

The questions that guide this study are as follows:

Central Question: What internal and external factors shape the spelling instructional

practices of third and fourth grade teachers?

Teacher instruction is a complex decision-making process. Instruction results from a

combination of internal and external factors (Boschman et al., 2014; Hora, 2012; James &

Pollard, 2011). In accordance with Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocality, internal factors are

labeled as personal factors and external factors were labeled as environmental and behavioral

(i.e., school and classroom) factors. Environmental and behavioral factors are not separated

because in studies, such as this one, people cannot be separated from their actions. For instance,

one component of school environment is school climate, and one of the factors that affect school

climate is principal-teacher interactions (i.e., behavior; Sheras & Bradshaw, 2016). Principals

are both environmental and behavioral influences. Therefore, to illustrate the behavioral and

environmental influence on spelling instruction, external factors specifically focus on differences

between educational institutions (i.e., schools) and classroom factors.

Sub-Question 1: How are spelling instructional practices of third and fourth grade

teachers shaped by personal factors?

Researchers have identified a wide array of personal factors that may affect classroom

instruction; such as, educator’s content knowledge (Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen,

2012; Daffern, 2017b; Purvis et al., 2016; Puliatte & Ehri, 2018), pedagogical beliefs (Brawand

& King‐Sears, 2017; James & Pollard, 2011), and teacher self-efficacy (Cansoy, Parlar, &

26

Kilinc, 2017; Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011; Zee, & Koomen, 2016). Since teachers in

the same building may approach literacy instruction with vastly different methods (Marzo,

2003), the first sub-question seeks to understand how teacher-specific factors influence

instructional practices in spelling.

Sub-Question 2: How are spelling instructional practices by third and fourth grade

teachers shaped by the classroom’s environmental and behavioral factors?

In this study, classroom factors included student-related features that may affect

instructional practices of teachers. Teachers consistently report classroom management as an

area of difficulty (Crawshaw, 2015; Pines, 2002; Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, &

Barber, 2011). To help decrease disruptive behavior and increase student learning, teachers may

develop lessons that use student data and engage students (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Gullo, 2014;

Hora, Bouwma-Gearhart, & Park, 2017; Lee, 2014; Mandinach, 2012; Northey et al., 2018;

Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012). Thus, the second sub-question focuses on

how classroom specific components, namely students, influence spelling instruction.

Sub-Question 3: How are spelling instructional practices of third and fourth grade

teachers shaped by the institution’s environmental and behavioral factors?

As the same teacher may teach a subject differently, depending upon school expectations,

the third sub-question focused on the influences of specific educational institutions (i.e., schools)

on spelling instruction. Research-based examples of school factors include, but are not limited

to, the following: state and national policies (Copp, 2017; Sheras & Bradshaw, 2016), school

personnel (Donaldson, 2013; May & Supovitz, 2011; Sebastian, Allensworth, & Huang, 2016;

Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010), and curriculum (Ho, 2010; James & Pollard, 2011;

McCaffrey et al., 2001).

27

Definitions

1. Developmental Word Study Approach - A belief students will progress through distinct

phases of spelling acquisition (Henderson & Templeton, 1989). Word sorts and

individualized lists by stage and word sorts often accompany this approach.

2. Incidental Spelling Approach – A belief students will inherently learn as they read and

write (Westwood, 2018). If spelling instruction is provided, it occurs on an as needed

basis (Weiner, 2004).

3. Institutional Theory – “An approach to understanding organizations and management

practices as the product of social rather than economic pressures” (Suddaby, 2013, p.

379). In this study, schools are considered institutions.

4. Mental Graphemic Representations – “Stored mental representations of specific words or

word parts” (Apel, 2011, p. 594).

5. Multilinguistic Approach – A method of teaching spelling that includes morphological

and phonological concepts and orthographical rules and features (Garcia, Abbott, &

Berninger, 2010).

6. Orthography – “Coding and analyzing written words and the single letters, letter groups,

and larger letter patterns in them” (Bahr, Silliman, Berninger, & Dowa, 2012, p. 1588).

7. Orthographical Knowledge – “Stored information in memory for the correct way to write

a language’s orthography” (Apel, 2011, p. 594).

8. Peter Principle – This principle is based upon a story in which a beggar was healed after

he asked Peter and John for money (Acts 3:1-8). Before healing the man, Peter stated he

could not give that which he did not own. In the classroom, this translates to educators

28

not being able to transmit knowledge if they do not first have the knowledge (Applegate

& Applegate, 2004).

9. Phonology – “Coding and analyzing phonemes and other sound units in spoken words”

(Bahr et al., 2012, p. 1588).

10. Triple Word Form Theory – A spelling acquisition theory that supports non-linear

acquisition of morphological, phonological, and orthographical components (Garcia et

al., 2010).

11. Whole Word Approach – An approach to teaching spelling that encourages rote memory

as words are memorized as an entire word instead of smaller components within a word

(Henderson, 1987).

Summary

Spelling instruction helps increase spelling, reading, and writing skills (Good et al., 2015;

Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Wolter & Dilworth, 2014). This embedded, explanatory multiple

case study seeks to understand why third and fourth grade teachers utilize their given

instructional approaches to spelling. Literature primarily attributes a lack of research-based

spelling practices to inadequate resources or limited teacher knowledge (e.g., Daffern &

Mackenzie, 2019; Graham et al., 2008; Herrington & Macken-Horarik, 2015). Additional

institutional and teacher-specific components, however, may influence spelling instruction.

Since teacher decisions reflect an interplay between many variables, a multiple case study helps

explain why teachers employ their given instructional practices in spelling. The study takes

place in three diverse cases (i.e., schools) in Delaware. The findings may help policy makers,

districts, schools, teacher preparation programs, and educators understand how research-based

spelling instruction can be implemented and supported.

29

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

Spelling instruction improves student phonological awareness (Martins & Silva, 2006),

word recognition skills (Good et al., 2015; Goodwin & Perkins, 2015; Graham & Herbert, 2011),

and reading comprehension (Conrad et al., 2013; Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Wolter &

Dilworth, 2014; Weiser, & Mathes, 2011). Yet, there are two spelling-specific gaps occurring

within the classroom: (a) a gap between research-based spelling practices and teacher beliefs and

knowledge (Daffern & MacKenzie, 2019; McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Moats, 2014; Westwood,

2018), and (b) a gap between beliefs about effective instruction and implemented spelling

instruction (Adoniou, 2014; Fresch, 2007). Researchers have identified the reasons for both gaps

to be lack of teacher training, content knowledge, and resources (Doyle et al., 2015; Fresch,

2007; McNeill & Kirk, 2014).

To help develop an understanding of spelling instruction within an educational

organization, this chapter has two sections: the theoretical framework and the related spelling

literature. Since teachers’ instructional practices are shaped by an array of multifaceted

components (see, for example, Anderson & Standerford, 2012; Boschman, McKenney, & Voogt,

2014; James & Pollard, 2011), this theoretical framework utilizes Bandura’s (1986) social

cognitive theory to investigate how environmental, personal, and behavioral factors inform

classroom practices. Then, to gain an understanding of spelling instruction within the classroom,

past and present practices, spelling acquisition theories, effects of spelling instruction, and

methodological approaches are explored. Finally, the types and effects of the organizational

components of schools are examined.

Theoretical Framework

30

A spectrum of theorists have attempted to explain behavior via one-sided determinism

(Bandura, 1986). For instance, Skinner’s (1974) behaviorism theorized human behavior is solely

a result of environmental factors and external stimuli. On the other end of the spectrum,

proponents of personal determinism upheld that choices are solely determined by an individual’s

traits and instincts (Bandura, 1986). In contrast, as illustrated by the triadic reciprocal causation

model, Bandura (1986) promotes that choices and beliefs are products of internal and external

factors. Since “triadic” means three, and “reciprocal causation” refers to a reciprocating cause

and effect, Bandura (1986) believed three components (i.e., environmental, behavioral, and

personal) interacted simultaneously to influence behavior. The reciprocating cause and effect

process is also known as triadic reciprocality (Bandura, 1986).

Personal factors include knowledge, beliefs, values, and biological composition

(Bandura, 1986). Instruction, modeling, and persuasion are examples of environmental factors.

Behavioral factors include both personal behavior and social reactions (Bandura, 1986). Due to

the interaction between the influences, “people are both products and producers of their

environment” (Woods & Bandura, 1989, p. 362). People have an active, agentic role within their

own lives (Bandura, 2001). Traditionally, Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal causation model

looks like the following:

31

Figure 1

Adapted Model of Bandura’s (1986) Triadic Reciprocal Causation Model. Each factor has a

reciprocating but not always equal effect on the other factors (Bandura, 1986).

To help understand how reciprocal causation results in spelling instruction, published

research on instructional practices of teachers was reviewed (e.g., Boschman, McKenney, &

Voogt, 2014; Hora, 2012; James & Pollard, 2011; Nichols, Zellner, Willson, Mergen, & Young,

2005). Next, specific instructional influencers were identified and embedded within components

of triadic reciprocality. Personal influences (e.g., content knowledge) were easily identified

within instructional choice models. Environmental and behavioral influences, however, were

more difficult to differentiate. For instance, as previously mentioned, principals could be

categorized as environmental and behavioral influences.

In this study, behavioral and environmental factors were not differentiated and include

both classroom and school factors. Specifically, school influences include, but are not limited to,

the following: state and national policies (Copp, 2017; Sheras & Bradshaw, 2016), school

personnel (Donaldson, 2013; May & Supovitz, 2011; Sebastian, Allensworth, & Huang, 2016;

Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010), and curriculum (Ho, 2010; James & Pollard, 2011;

McCaffrey et al., 2001; Remillard, 2005). Classroom factors include classroom-specific factors,

such as student behavior and academic levels.

Environmental Factors

(e.g., other people)

Behavioral Factors

(e.g., social reactions)

Personal Factors

(e.g., beliefs, values, etc.)

32

Personal influences include, but are not limited to, an educator’s content knowledge

(Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen, 2012; Daffern, 2017b), pedagogical beliefs

(Brawand & King‐Sears, 2017; James & Pollard, 2011), and self-efficacy (Cansoy, Parlar, &

Kilinc, 2017; Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015; Zee, &

Koomen, 2016). Content knowledge refers to academic knowledge necessary for classroom

instruction. Pedagogical beliefs are the “general principles of teaching and learning” (James &

Pollard, 2011, p. 276). Teacher self-efficacy is defined as the degree to which teachers believe

they can or cannot effectively do their job (Aldridge & Frasier, 2016).

Therefore, the model for determining the influence of various personal, behavioral, and

environmental factors is as follows:

Figure 2

Model of Possible Influencers of Instructional Practices. Unlike Bandura’s (1986) triadic model,

environmental and behavioral were not divided; rather, the external influencers were

differentiated according to school and classroom-specific factors.

Environmental and

Behavioral Factors:

School-Specific

(School Personnel,

National and State Policies,

Curriculum, etc.)

Environmental and

Behavioral Factors:

Classroom-Specific

(Student Knowledge,

Student Behavior, etc.)

Personal Factors

(Content Knowledge, Self-

Efficacy, Pedagogical

Knowledge, etc.)

33

Environmental and Behavioral Influences

Within schools, teachers interact with the school’s sociocultural norms and society’s

political and economic contexts (Rubenstein, Ridgley, Callan, Karami, & Ehlinger, 2018). The

effects of both the political expectations and school culture is evident. For instance, Brownell et

al.’s (2014) grounded study (N = 5) found context (i.e., school environment) as one of three key

components of teachers’ instructional choices. In this section, both school and classroom

influences are placed within triadic reciprocality (Bandura, 1986) and specific research-based

influencers are identified.

School influences. School environment is frequently divided into school climate and

state and national policies (Sheras & Bradshaw, 2016). Therefore, this section discusses school

personnel (a contributor to school climate; Sheras & Bradshaw, 2016) and state and national

policies. Furthermore, instructional models often include curriculum as an influencer of

instruction (e.g., Ho, 2010; James & Pollard, 2011). Since the English language arts (ELA)

curriculum between the schools in this study are vastly different, curriculum is included as a

school factor.

State and national policies. Incentivized policies, such as high stakes assessments, lead

to curricular and instructional changes (Copp, 2017; von der Embse, Schoemann, Kilgus,

Wicoff, & Bowler, 2017). Specifically, if high stakes testing is required, classroom instruction

will be geared toward test content (Copp, 2017). While high stakes testing is frequently

associated with negative consequences (Berliner, 2011; Jolly, 2016; Polesel, Rice, & Dulfer,

2014; Turnbull, 2016; von der Embse et al., 2017), since the passing of Public Law 107-110, No

Child Left Behind (NCLB), high stakes testing has become a reality for all public and some

private schools. In 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) continued the requirement for

34

high stakes testing and quantified NCLB’s requirement for “challenging” state standards to mean

standards that “prepared students for college and careers” (Black, 2017, p. 1332).

Additionally, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were developed in 2010, and

Race to the Top provided additional funds to state who adopted the CCSS (Whitman, 2015).

Before Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Delaware’s state test was 100% computer-based

and spelling was not assessed. During the 2013-2014 school year, Delaware public schools fully

implemented the Common Core State Standards (DelExcels, 2018). The first English language

arts CCSS includes spelling. For instance, CCSS (2018) ELA-Literacy 1.2D stated first-grade

students should “use conventional spelling for words with common spelling patterns and for

frequently occurring irregular words.” When the Smarter Balanced assessments replaced

Delaware’s previous state test, spelling and grammar were once again tested.

To ensure the various components of the CCSS were addressed in the curriculum, many

Delaware public school districts, including the two in this study, piloted and purchased new

English language arts curriculum. As private schools in Delaware were allowed to choose the

standards that best fit their educational philosophy and were exempt from state testing, the

adoption of the Common Core did not inherently influence private schools. Consequently,

depending on the school type (i.e., public or private), the state and national policies may affect

schools differently.

School personnel. School personnel includes a wide array of individuals who may hold

instructional or non-instructional roles. Examples of non-instructional roles include custodians

and cafeteria staff. While non-instructional personnel help facilitate learning by supporting

school operations, in this study, school personnel specifically include those who may influence

classroom instruction. Therefore, personnel may include but are not limited to, other teachers

35

(Supovitz et al., 2010), administration (Donaldson, 2013; Hattie, 2012; Malen, Supovitz,

Sirinides, & May, 2010; May & Supovitz, 2011; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Sebastian et al.,

2016), and literacy specialists (Stephens et al, 2011; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010).

Administration. Leithwood, Andersons, and Wahlstrom (2004) stated, “The total (direct

and indirect) effects of leadership on student learning account for about a quarter of total school

effects” (p. 5). Thus, principals are increasingly being called upon to serve as instructional

leaders (du Plessis, 2013; Puzio, Newcomer, & Goff, 2015). When administrators act as

instructional leaders, “the quality of individual teacher instruction, the height of student

achievement and the degree of efficiency in school functioning” are positively affected (du

Plessis, 2013, p. 79). Yet, being an instructional leader does not necessarily involve principals

having in-depth knowledge about each teacher’s content matter. Rather, instructional leaders

(e.g., principals) help facilitate staff learning (du Plessis, 2013; Lochmiller & Acker-Hocevar,

2016). In the context of this study, the administration’s assumed roles and teacher expectations

have varying levels of influence on literacy, including spelling instruction.

Teachers. Within educational organizations, experienced teachers, who others see as

effective, are often the ones who are considered agents of change and sources for advice

(Anderson & Standerford, 2012). Then, as Bandura (1986) stated, “The extent that observers

achieve good results by adopting modeled solutions, they raise their estimate of the models’

competence and are even more prone to use their behavior as a guide” (p. 208). In order to

benefit from the advice of experienced teachers, schools often endorse professional learning

communities and new teacher mentorship.

Professional learning communities. The effect of peer teachers upon instruction is often

studied within the context of professional learning communities (e.g., Hairon, Goh, Chua, &

36

Wang, 2017; Spencer, 2016; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008; Woodland, 2016). The idea for

professional learning communities (PLCs) was adapted from a business model of learning within

organizations (Vescio et al., 2008). PLCs are meant to “develop collaborative work cultures for

teachers” (Vescio, et al., 2008, p. 81) and are often comprised of grade level teachers and

administration or school specialists (Benoliel & Schechter, 2017). Effective PLCs also work

towards “deprivatizing practice to make teaching public” (Vescio et al., 2008, p. 81). Thus,

effective teaching practices of peer teachers can be discussed and dispersed.

While PLCs are often associated with improved teacher instruction and increased teacher

self-efficacy (Gary, Kruse, & Tartor, 2016; Hairon et al., 2017), they also have varying levels of

effectiveness (Benoliel & Schechter, 2017). PLCs are an expected component in public schools

in Delaware. Therefore, in this study, the two public schools require teachers to attend weekly

grade-level professional learning communities. While PLCs may also be across grade-levels or

be subject-based, due to only having one class per grade, the private school does not have PLCs.

Mentorship. Goldrick, Osta, Barlin, and Burn (2012) stated, “In 1987-88 the typical (or

model) teacher had 15 years of teaching experience; by 2007-08, the typical teacher was in her

first year” (p. 3). Studies have estimated new teacher attrition to be approximately 40-50%

within the first five years of teaching (Ingersoll, 2003; Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014).

Successful mentorship programs have been linked with increased student learning and decreased

teacher attrition (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez & Tomlinson, 2009; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004;

Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).

The type of mentorship, however, will affect the outcomes. For instance, mentoring

models where the mentors only mentor (i.e., full release model), as opposed to mentoring in

addition to teaching (i.e., site-based model), have a greater impact upon the mentee’s instruction

37

(Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1993; Fletcher & Strong, 2009). Fletcher and Strong (2009) studied

the effect of the two types of mentorship upon student learning. Twenty-eight teachers and 352

students participated. The new teachers who were mentored by full release mentors saw more

student growth than new teachers mentored by site-based mentors. Interestingly, this went

against expectations due to a higher percentage of low socio-economic students within the full

release group (Fletcher & Strong, 2009).

Most states, including Delaware, have implemented new teacher mentorship programs

(Goldrick et al., 2012). Delaware’s three-year-long mentorship program is required to obtain a

continuing teacher license. In accordance with state regulations, all public schools in Delaware

use a site-based mentor model (Delaware Department of Education, 2018). Since private schools

may not require teachers to have an active teacher’s license, mentorship in private schools may

not take place. The private school in this study has an informal mentorship program; therefore,

new teachers are assigned a mentor for their first year who will periodically check in with them.

Literacy specialists. The International Literacy Association (2018) defined literacy

specialists as “professionals whose goal is to improve reading achievement in their assigned

school or district positions. Their responsibilities and titles often differ based on the context in

which they work, and their teaching and educational experiences” (para. 1). As the school

experts in their field, literacy specialists may influence the instructional choices of other ELA

teachers (Stephens et al, 2011; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010). While literacy specialists were

originally viewed as interventionists, since the passing of NCLB and maintained under ESSA,

their role has shifted to include helping educators understand research-based literacy practices

(Bean et al., 2015). Consequently, literacy specialists may also be a reading coach,

interventionist, or leader (ILA, 2018).

38

In Bean et al.’s (2015) national survey (N = 2,500), literacy professionals reported they

were expected to provide in-service trainings, model lessons, and coach teachers. The role has

shifted from an individualized focus (i.e., on specific students) to a broader picture (i.e., the

entire school, Galloway & Lesaux, 2014). Since the role of literacy specialists greatly varies,

their ability to affect change in literacy classrooms will depend upon their school-specific role

(MacPhee & Jewett, 2017; Taylor, Zugelder, & Bowman, 2013). Therefore, this study includes a

literacy expert from each school who provides guidance to classroom teachers and helps decide

upon and implement the ELA curriculum.

Curriculum. Teachers often view themselves as curriculum implementers as opposed to

curriculum developers (Ho, 2010). Therefore, a district’s curricular decisions will affect

classroom instruction (Ho, 2010; McCaffrey et al., 2001). There are four basic types of spelling

curriculum: (a) published primers, (b) individualized spelling programs, (c) incidental programs,

and (d) adaptive computer-based programs (Williams, Austin, & Vaughn, 2018).

Published primers. Published primers are the most utilized type of spelling curriculum in

schools (Fresch, 2007). Published primers (e.g., Scholastic Spelling, Houghton Mifflin’s

Spelling and Vocabulary: My Words to Read and Write) typically use a traditional five-day

format (Davis, 2011). Primers traditionally have one on-level list but may have pre-determined

leveled lists with ten to twenty words given weekly (Davis, 2011). The curriculum may include

individualized instruction, writing components, and language-based activities (e.g., working with

prefixes and suffixes; Davis, 2011). Weekly activities may include worksheets, word sorts,

mini-lessons, and weekly assessments (Weiner, 2004).

Individualized spelling. Individualized spelling programs, also called developmental

word study programs, begin with a spelling placement assessment (Weiner, 2004). Then based

39

upon the students’ spelling levels, lessons are carefully scaffolded (Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004).

One popular individualized spelling curriculum is Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, and Johnston’s

(2012) Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics. As stated by Davis (2011), “Words Their

Way foci are on word study, where students examine, manipulate, and categorize words” (p. 42).

Students are assigned work according to their developmental spelling stage and complete various

spelling activities, such as word sorts, games, and sentence-writing with specific words (Davis,

2011).

Incidental. When teachers implement an incidental approach to spelling, they do so with

the understanding that “a specific spelling curriculum is unnecessary, even undesirable. Spelling

is best learned, in this view, from broad reading and meaningful writing” (Schlagal, 2002, p. 44).

Incidental spelling programs may or may not include direct instruction (Weiner, 2004). If direct

instruction is provided, it occurs as needed. For instance, as errors are made in student writing,

teachers may direct students towards the correct spelling strategy (Weiner, 2004). Students may

create personal dictionaries based on their own misspellings (Schlagal, 2002). To help spelling

inherently develop, incidental programs ensure students are in literacy-rich environment.

Student work is informally assessed to determine if growth is shown throughout the school year

(Weiner, 2004).

Computer-based programs. Computer-based programs are typically used as an

intervention as opposed to a whole-class curriculum (Williams et al., 2018). However, with the

rise of New Literacies (i.e. literacy skills that utilize technology), computer-based programs

should not be overlooked. Ghysels and Haelermans (2018) study (N = 350) specifically focused

on the casual effects of an adaptive ELA computer program on the spelling abilities of middle

and high school students. Upon the conclusion of the 16-week study, 30 minutes per week

40

positively affected student spelling with a Cohen’s d effect size of 0.16 (Ghysels & Haelermans,

2018).

Classroom influences. As previously mentioned, student learning and behavior could, at

times, be considered behavioral influences and, at other times, considered environmental

influences within Bandura’s (1986) reciprocal causation model. Teachers consistently name

behavior management as one of their top difficulties (Crawshaw, 2015; Pines, 2002; Tsouloupas,

Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2011), and student disruptive behavior is one of the top

reasons for teacher attrition and burnout (Ingersoll, 2001; OFSTED, 2014). Teacher instruction

affects student behavior (Müller, Hofmann, Begert, & Cillessen, 2018), and student behavior

influences teacher instruction (Nurmi & Kiuru, 2015; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). For instance,

teachers’ emotions and responses and perceptions of student behavior and performance “will

inform how they individualize their instruction and on how they instruct the classroom as a

whole” (Nurmi & Kiuru, 2015, p. 446). Conversely, students may become bored or

overwhelmed with an activity and misbehave as a means of escaping the assignment. One

strategy teachers may utilize to decrease negative behaviors and increase student learning is to

keep students engaged. Student engagement has been associated with higher academic

achievement and positive learning behaviors (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Lee, 2014; Northey et al.,

2018; Reyes et al., 2012).

Another strategy teachers may use to help effectively teach students is to use the

student’s current level of academic performance (Tompkins, 2014). In an era of high stakes

testing, data driven instruction has become an expectation within many schools (Gullo, 2013).

Data may take the form of formal or informal assessments and may be used to “inform, identify,

or clarify” (Gullo, 2013, p. 414). For example, schools may use data to identify students who

41

need remedial reading services, and teachers may use data to inform their literacy instruction

(Gullo, 2013). Both student engagement and data driven instruction are further discussed below.

Student engagement. Student engagement includes the following three multifaceted

components: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris,

2004). Behavioral engagement includes participation in classroom and school-wide activities

(Fredricks et al., 2004). Emotional engagement involves reactions to other individuals and

activities in the school. Cognitive engagement “draws on the idea of investment; it incorporates

thoughtfulness and willingness to exert the effort necessary to comprehend complex ideas and

master difficult skills” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 60).

In Lee’s (2014) study (N = 3,268) of high school students, the correlation between

behavioral and emotional engagement and reading performance was explored. Lee (2014)

discovered when behavioral engagement became a mediator of emotional engagement,

engagement had a total effect of 0.056 on reading performance. While no study to this

researcher’s knowledge has been specifically completed with student engagement and spelling,

studies such as Lee’s (2014) suggest a connectivity between student engagement and literacy

learning.

Student data. Akin to high stakes assessments, data driven decision making (DDDM)

has been an expectation under both NCLB and ESSA. Between the years of 2005 and 2007, the

number of districts who reported teachers had access to student data systems jumped from 48%

to 74% (Gallagher, Means, & Padilla, 2008). Data may take a variety of forms, such as, student

performance, observational data, or attitudinal data (Gullo, 2014). Additionally, within the

classroom, teachers may use formal and informal assessments to help plan instruction.

42

Data driven decision making is the process of using data to inform and guide decisions to

meet the students on their individual levels (Dunn, Airola, Lo, & Garrison, 2013). Yet,

traditionally, spelling is taught with one list per grade and measured with a spelling test at the

end of the week. Therefore, DDDM and differentiated instruction within spelling may or may

not occur.

Personal Influences

Two components of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory are observational learning

and enactive learning. Observational learning is learning that occurs due to observations

(Bandura, 1986) and is frequently utilized to teach new skills and concepts. For example,

business classes may utilize observational learning to increase negotiation skills (Loes &

Warren, 2016). Music majors who observed a Masterclass (a class between a student and

master) increased their knowledge of “technical, musical, performative and pedagogic elements”

(Haddon, 2014, p. 55). When learning about oral presentation skills, students with opportunities

to observe speeches which were well done, performed better than students who only learned

about and practiced speeches (De Grez, Valcke & Roozen, 2014).

Enactive learning is when people have observationally learned a concept (e.g., a teaching

strategy during inservice) and implemented it. Over time, the skill will be “perfected

experientially” (Bandura, 1986, p. 106). An example of enacted learning is illustrated by

comparing novice teachers with experienced teachers. Experienced teachers often adapted

curriculum-based lessons to reflect their pedagogy and successful teaching experiences (Regan et

al., 2016). Whereas, novice teachers typically stay close to their curriculum-formulated plan

(Regan et al., 2016). The results of observational learning (e.g., learning from education classes)

43

and enacted learning affect the personal domains of content knowledge, pedagogy, and self-

efficacy.

Content knowledge. In education, there is a concept about teacher content knowledge

called the Peter Principle (Applegate & Applegate, 2004). The Peter Principle is based upon a

Biblical story in Acts 3:1-8, in which a beggar asked Peter and John for money. Before healing

the man, Peter stated he could not give that which he did not own. In the classroom, this

translates to educators not being able to transmit knowledge if they do not first have the

knowledge (Applegate & Applegate, 2004).

In a study completed by Binks-Cantrell and colleagues (2012), teacher educators (i.e.,

those training undergraduate, pre-service teachers; N = 287) were assessed to determine their

level of understanding on language constructs. Then, their students were also assessed to

determine the pre-service teachers’ understanding of basic reading skills (phonological and

phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, etc.). The knowledge of the teacher educator had

a significant effect upon the pre-service teacher’s knowledge (η2 = .259). Specifically, those

with a greater understanding of language constructs produced pre-service teachers with a greater

understanding of basic reading skills.

Likewise, Puliatte and Ehri’s (2018) studied second grade (N = 16) and third grade

teachers (N = 16) with a combined 636 elementary students. The teachers completed a linguistic

knowledge survey, in which most teachers revealed a limited understanding of “spelling

conventions, word parts, and phonemic awareness” (Puliatte & Ehri, 2018, p. 254). The

teacher’s linguistic knowledge had an effect upon spelling gains. Specifically, teacher phonemic

awareness had the highest correlation (𝑟 = 0.53, 𝑝 <0.05) with student spelling gains (Puliatte

& Ehri, 2018). Teacher content knowledge will affect student learning.

44

Pedagogical beliefs. Teachers’ pedagogical approaches also impact student learning

(Brawand & King‐Sears, 2017; Foreman & Petscher, 2010; James & Pollard, 2011). Yet, while

pedagogical beliefs help to guide instruction, sometimes pedagogy does not make the transition

from belief to instruction (Jones & Lawson, 2015). Rather, in spelling, there is often a gap

between teacher beliefs and practice (Fresch, 2007). This theory-practice gap has also been

documented in science, math, and English language arts (e.g., Akhter & Akhtar, 2014; Phipps &

Borg, 2009; Purnomo, Suryadi, & Darwis, 2016).

To help develop an understanding of successful implementation of research-based

pedagogical ideas, teacher preparation programs incorporate observational learning (i.e., student

teaching and practicum). Observational learning helps develop “patterns of behavior” as skills or

demonstrations are illustrated (Bandura, 1986, p. 49). Through observational learning, pre-

service teachers observe, question, and apply best practices. Interestingly, the quality of the

student teaching experience is more important than the length of time spent student teaching

(Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012).

Specifically, when pre-service teachers work with experienced, effective teachers, the pre-

service teachers graduate with higher degrees of self-efficacy and instructional preparedness

(Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012).

Self-efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy is defined as the degree to which teachers believe

they can or cannot effectively do their job (Aldridge & Frasier, 2016). If educators have high

self-efficacy, they believe they can greatly affect the learning and environment within their

classrooms. Since teachers act in accordance with their beliefs, classroom outcomes are affected

by their self-efficacy. High self-efficacy has been linked to greater student achievement

(Shahzad, & Naureen, 2017), higher levels of job satisfaction, and lower teacher burnout rates

45

(Cansoy et al., 2017; Klassen et al., 2011; Zee & Koomen, 2016). Teachers with a high self-

efficacy in spelling will most likely produce students who are better spellers than teachers with

low self-efficacy in spelling. Studies suggest teachers have lower levels of confidence in

spelling than in other literacy areas (e.g., Adoniou, 2014; Doyle et al., 2015).

Fixed or growth mindsets. Spelling ability, akin to intelligence, might be viewed as “an

entity that dwells within us and that we can't change” (Dweck, 2000, p. 2). If individuals hold an

entity or fixed mindset, learning is confined to that which comes easily (Dweck, 2000). When

encountered with difficult material, students with fixed mindsets believe they do not have the

innate intelligence to learn the concept. In contrast, a growth mindset posits learning will

increase as effort is increased (Dweck, 2000). Growth mindsets among students and teachers

influences student motivation and academic achievement (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016;

Dweck, 2015; Haimovitz, Wormington, & Corpus, 2011).

Social Cognitive Theory in Practice

Admittedly, while the various factors were divided into three distinct parts, they are, at

times, indistinguishable. For instance, professional development has been linked with improved

student learning (Hammer, 2013; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). However, in

Furner and McCulla’s (2018) two-year study of three schools, the authors found that “each

school’s ethos and culture were seen to produce a distinctive teacher learning culture that

subsequently influenced whole-school planning for, and participation in, teacher professional

development” (p. 1). Teacher content knowledge, while seemingly a personal factor, may also

be closely aligned with environmental and behavioral characteristics within schools.

When discussing instructional choices of K-12 teachers, Hora (2012) stated that

instruction was a result of “complex cognitive processes that are informed by teachers’ mental

46

representations such as knowledge structures (i.e., schema), routinized practices (i.e., scripts),

and simplified decision-making rules (i.e., heuristics)” (p. 209). Yet, as teachers are a single

agent within an organization, cognitive processes interact with their organization (Hora, 2012).

Consequently, “over time, organizational members will repeatedly encounter certain factors and

become sensitized or attuned to how they act as constraints or affordances to practice, which are

then internalized as schema” (Hora, 2012, p. 209; emphasis in original). Experienced teachers

have a greater amount of previous experiences and trainings from which to compare present

circumstances. As a result, they may be able to more effectively and quickly choose an

appropriate response within their environment (Hora, 2012).

The environmental and behavioral aspects of educational settings help explain why

pedagogical practices often diverge from actual classroom instruction (see, for example, Bate,

2010; Gill, Ashton, & Algina, 2004; Phillips, 2010; Karimi & Dehghani, 2016). Due to external

pressures and expectations, literacy teachers may be required to teach curricula that deviates

from their understanding of effective instruction (Costigan, 2018). This tension between practice

and beliefs is exemplified in spelling as well (Fresch, 2007).

Previous researchers have surveyed teachers to determine their beliefs, instructional

practices, and knowledge about spelling (Doyle et al., 2015; Fresch, 2007; McNeil & Kirk,

2014). This study, however, seeks to understand spelling instruction as a product within a

system. Therefore, the social cognitive theory provides a framework to help explain how

environmental and behavioral factors (e.g., school climate, school personnel, national policies,

state policies, and students) interact with personal influencers (e.g., content knowledge, self-

efficacy, and pedagogical beliefs) to produce a teacher’s instructional decisions in spelling.

Related Literature

47

In an era of technology and autocorrect, some may question the importance of spelling

instruction (Ickles-Dunbar, 2006). Therefore, this related literature section provides an

understanding of and support for spelling instruction. Specifically, the topics are as follows:

benefits of spelling instruction, development of English orthography, historical spelling

practices, spelling acquisition theories, spelling as a multilinguistic task, research-based spelling

practices, and instructional choices of teachers.

Benefits of Spelling Instruction

As previously mentioned, only 36% of fourth grade students in American schools are

proficient in reading (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). The connection between reading

and spelling is well documented (Conrad, 2008; Ehri, 2000; Sayeski, 2011; Soltaninejad et al.,

2014; Williams, Walker, Vaughn, & Wanzek, 2017; Weiser & Mathes, 2011; Yeung et al.,

2013), and direct spelling instruction is linked with improved reading, spelling, and writing

abilities (August, 2011; Conrad et al., 2013; Cordewener et al., 2018; Graham & Herbert, 2011;

Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Martin-Chang et al., 2014; Wolter & Dilworth, 2014). Therefore,

spelling instruction has both academic benefits and benefits outside of the academic setting.

Spelling and reading. While strong spellers are typically strong readers, strong readers

are not always strong spellers (Frith, 1980; Retelsdorf & Köller, 2014; Sénéchal, 2017). The

process of decoding words is usually easier than encoding (Bosse, 2015; Ehri, 2000). Decoding

(i.e., reading) requires recall of grapheme-phoneme correspondence. Encoding (i.e., spelling),

however, also requires production of correct English orthography (Bosse, 2015). Thus, to spell,

rules and linguistic knowledge is necessary.

Researchers have completed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain to

determine which areas were used during reading or spelling tasks (Purcell, Shea, & Rapp, 2014;

48

Rapp & Lipka; 2011). The MRIs revealed reading and spelling both occur in the left hemisphere

of the brain. Yet, while some tasks overlap, depending on the specific task, separate and distinct

areas may be utilized (Planton, Jucla, Roux, & Démonet, 2013; Purcell et al., 2014; Rapp &

Lipka; 2011). Spelling and reading have a reciprocal but not identical relationship (Conrad,

2008; Fayol, Zorman, & Lete, 2009; Holmes, Malone, & Redenbach, 2008).

In Martin-Chang, Ouellette, and Madden’s (2014) study of college students (N = 74),

students read 30 words three times each. Seven days later, the participants were individually

administered a spelling test on the words. Participant analysis

(F (1,73) = 9.20, p = .003, d = .363) “supported a moderate relation” between spelling and

reading (p. 1493). If students can spell words correctly, they will most likely be able to read

them with higher levels of fluency (Martin-Chang et al., 2014).

Spelling instruction also helps support other reading skills. For instance, Graham and

Santangelo’s (2014) study completed a meta-analysis on the effects of direct spelling instruction

and found spelling instruction had significant effect size upon word reading skills (ES = .40),

phonological awareness (ES = .51), and reading comprehension (ES = .66). Likewise, in

August’s (2011) study (N = 61) of intermediate English language learners, the ability to spell

words within passages was found to be highly correlated (r = .36) with the comprehension of the

passage.

Spelling and writing. Akin to reading, spelling abilities also affect writing. If students

do not have the necessary spelling skills, greater cognitive efforts must be devoted to spelling to

the detriment of the writing task (Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002; Puranik & AlOtaiba,

2012). For example, Puranik and AlOtaiba’s (2012) studied the writing pieces of 242

kindergarten students. After controlling for various factors (e.g., social-economic status, gender,

49

oral language, and reading measures), spelling and handwriting were both significant factors (F

= 17.86, Adjusted R2 = .386, p .00) of the quality of the writing pieces.

As students mature, spelling difficulties may lead to limited word choice, may cause

them to “develop a mind-set that they cannot write” (Graham & Santangelo, 2014, p. 1704), and

may negatively affect school grades (Graham, Harris, & Herbert, 2011). For instance, Graham et

al. (2011) found the exact same writing piece, which was not supposed to be graded for spelling,

received lower scores when misspelled words were present.

Spelling beyond educational settings. Spelling may also affect job opportunities after

graduation. For instance, professional recruiters weight spelling on resumes or cover letters as

more important than experience (Martin-Lacroux & Lacroux, 2017). Consequently, an applicant

with less experience but no spelling errors on the resume has a higher change of being hired than

a person with more experience, but spelling errors on the resume (Martin-Lacroux & Lacroux,

2017). Furthermore, The National Commission of Writing (2004) completed a survey of 64

large American corporations. Two-thirds of those companies reported their employees were

responsible for written communication (e.g., e-mails or manufacturing documentation).

Companies communicated individuals with inadequate writing abilities “will not be hired and are

unlikely to last long enough to be considered for promotion” (NCW, 2004, p. 3).

Development of English Orthography

The question then should not be, “Should spelling be taught?” Rather, the question

should be: How should spelling be taught? (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). To fully comprehend

perspectives of spelling acquisition and current spelling instruction, the history of English

(including its orthography) must first be explored. The word, orthography, is comprised of “two

Greek roots: orthos, meaning correct, and graphein, meaning to write” (Apel, 2011, p. 592).

50

Orthography contains the written aspects of language (e.g., spelling and punctuation); it involves

an understanding of print (McMurray & McVeigh, 2016).

Languages typically utilize syllabic, logo-graphic, or alphabetic orthographies (Venezky,

1999). Syllabic orthographies (e.g., Cherokee) correspond symbols with syllables (e.g., vowel

and consonant). Logo-graphic languages (e.g., Chinese) represent words and morphemes with

symbols (Venezky, 1999). Conversely, English, as with many languages, adheres to the

alphabetic principle. Phonemes are represented by graphemes (i.e., written letters; Aaron et al.,

2008). Some languages, such as Finnish or Spanish, have shallow orthographies, with a

consistent one-to-one grapheme-phoneme relationship. For instance, in Spanish, the letter, o,

always has an /ō/ sound. English, however, is considered a deep or opaque language (Hsu,

2014). Sounds are not consistently spelled the same way. Part of the reason for spelling

irregularity is attributed to English having 44 sounds but only 26 letters in the alphabet (Daffern,

2015). Furthermore, the 44 sounds have approximately 98 letter-sound combinations (Uhry,

2013). For instance, /f/ may be spelled as follows: f as in fun, -ff as in bluff, -gh as in laugh, or

-lf as in half.

Some may believe, as Müller stated in 1876, “It is, I believe, hardly necessary that I

should prove how corrupted, effete, and utterly irrational the present system of spelling is” (as

cited in Hoffman, 2017, p. 739). Yet, English spelling is not completely chaotic (Kessler &

Treiman, 2003). Rather, as Venezky (1999) stated, “English orthography is not a failed phonetic

transcription system, invented out of madness or perversity. Instead, it is a more complex system

that preserves bits of history (i.e., etymology), facilitates understanding, and also translates into

sound” (p. 4). Indeed, 50% of words follow morphological and phonological rules (Moats,

51

2005). Thirty-five percent only have one additional letter; only 4% of words do not follow any

type of rule (Moats, 2005).

Irregularities in English are attributed to its development. The development of English

can be split into seven stages: (a) pre-English, (b) early old English, (c) later old English, (d)

middle English, (e) early modern English, (f) modern English, and (g) late modern English

(Graddol, 1996). Pre-English to later old English was heavily influenced by Celtic-Latin,

German, and Scandinavian languages. During the middle English (1100-1450 AD) era,

however, Latin and French became the primary influencers (Graddol, 1996). Hence, 50% of

English words were spelled using Latin rules (Moats, 2005), but other factors (i.e., etymological

roots, morphological components, and phonological sounds) also affected spelling (Crystal,

2012). Importantly, during the early modern English period, the Renaissance or “rebirth of

learning” resulted in a renewed interested in classical writings of Greek and Roman scholars

(Leith & Graddol, 1996, p. 137). In addition to Latin, Greek became a primary influencer of

English. In fact, 15-20% of English words are derivatives of Greek (Joshi, Treiman, Carreker, &

Moats, 2008-2009).

The earliest English texts only had twenty-two letters (Venezky, 1999). Interestingly,

“English has always had rather loose immigration regulations for vocabulary. Words . . . have

been forever welcomed, regardless of their origins” (Venezky, 1999, p. 7). To accommodate for

the influx of words and sounds from other languages more letters were created (Venezky, 1999).

As words were being spelled, their sound was often taken into consideration. As English

evolved, so too did the pronunciation. For instance, /ee/ and /ea/ used to have different

pronunciations (Venezky, 1999), and knife used to be pronounced with /k/ (Aaron et al., 2008).

52

Prior to the 16th century, words frequently had numerous spellings (Bell, 2012). The

availability of the printing press and influential published works, however, helped to normalize

spelling. Two significant works that perpetuated the uniformity of English spelling were the

King James Bible in 1611 and A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755 (Aaron et al.,

2008). Originally, the King James Bible included numerous spellings for words (e.g., he and

hee; Bell, 2012). However, in an era where books were scarce, the King James Bible was the

most widely owned book (Bell, 2012). To help further normalize English spelling, Samuel

Johnson developed and published A Dictionary of the English Language. Then, in 1787, Noah

Webster published his American Spelling Book. Significantly, it was written during and after the

American Revolution. Thus, just as America separated from England, so too, did certain words

deviate from English spelling (Crystal, 2012).

With the publishing of the dictionaries, English became a standard language, which as

defined by Leith and Graddol (1996) is “one that provides agreed norms of usage, usually

codified in dictionaries and grammars for a wide range of institutional purposes such as

education, government, and science” (p. 138). While the English language continues to evolve

and absorb new words (e.g., texting, Skyping, etc.), the orthographic rules are essentially set for

Standard English. In academic settings, comma rules and spelling will not randomly change.

Development of Spelling Instruction

During the colonial era, American schools started to become common, and spelling was

an essential component of the classroom. An alphabetic approach was utilized, in which students

learned to spell words according to their syllables (Hodges, 1987). Students had to remember

the syllabic spellings, such as de-cep-tion, but would not be given the word’s definition (Hodges,

53

1987). Words and syllables were neither in context nor grouped according to rules. In the late

1800s, whole word memorization started to replace the alphabetic approach (Hodges, 1987).

In 1897, Joseph Rice’s significant study reviewed the spelling achievement of 13,000

American students. Rice concluded that 15 minutes a day should be spent teaching spelling, and

spelling words should be taught according to orthographical patterns (Hodges, 1987). Then, in

the early to mid-1900s, theories of prominent psychologists, such as B. F. Skinner, started to be

integrated into the classroom (Fresch, 2007). Skinner (1974) believed that people, like other

mammals, are conditioned to act in certain ways. For instance, if a dog is consistently given a

treat after sitting, it connects the action of sitting with the treat. In the classroom, rewarding high

spelling quiz grades at the end of the week was supposed to result in students memorizing a list

of spelling words (Fresch, 2007).

A traditional approach of spelling acquisition formulated. Spelling was viewed as

haphazard. There were some rules and many exceptions to those rules (Treiman & Kessler,

2014). Spelling was believed to be learned best through rote memorization and positive

reinforcement. Admittedly, as Westwood (2005) stated:

This approach had a certain appeal to it. It was systematic. Children knew what was

expected of them. Teachers felt that children’s spelling needs were being efficiently

addressed. Regular test results showed which children needed more assistance with

spelling. Parents knew how spelling was being taught in school. (p. 3)

An inherent weakness within the traditional approach to spelling acquisition became known as

“Friday test, Monday miss” (Putman, 2016, p. 25; emphasis in original). In other words, correct

spelling on a weekly spelling assessment did not automatically mean correct spelling in writing

pieces (Westwood, 2005). In fact, in Fresch’s (2007) survey study (N = 335), the number one

54

spelling complaint of elementary teachers was the lack of application from the spelling list to

individual writing.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the whole language movement in literacy became popular.

Instead of explicitly teaching skills, such as phonics and text structures, the whole language

movement upheld “authentic skills are better caught in the act of reading and writing genuine

texts for authentic purposes than taught directly and explicitly by teachers” (Pearson, 2004, p.

221). Within the whole language movement, spelling acquisition was believed to be naturally

acquired during reading and writing (Westwood, 2005). Teachers were supposed to engage

students in conversations about spelling during writing. The weakness within this idea was

teachers had limited time to meet with each student (Westwood, 2005). Discussions, if they took

place, tended to be infrequent and superficial (Westwood, 2005). Misspelled words could be

individually taught, but student learning was limited as words were disconnected from word

families (Westwood, 2005).

With the abysmal reading test scores of California, a promoter of the whole language

movement, in 1992 and 1994, whole language literacy was replaced with skills-based literacy

(Kim, 2008). Then the National Reading Panel’s (2000) use of empirical research in their report,

Preventing Reading Difficulties, helped to once again promote the use of phonics and phonemic

instruction within ELA curriculums (Pearson, 2004). Empirical spelling research has revealed

spelling instruction is most impactful when direct instruction takes place (Graham & Santangelo,

2014) and the multilinguistic components of English are explicitly taught (Apel, 2009; Daffern,

2017a).

Spelling as a Multilinguistic Task

55

English language is a morphophonemic language (Garcia, Abbott, & Berninger, 2010).

When broken into its two roots, morpho + phonemic, morpho- relates to morphology and

phonemes are a component of phonology. Therefore, a morphophonemic language means the

language has both morphological and phonological components. In contrast to the rote

memorization (traditional or visual) approach to teaching, spelling can also be taught as a

multilinguistic task. A multilinguistic teaching approach to spelling does not view spelling as a

practice in memorization. Rather, since English writing is a morphophonemic orthography, a

multilinguistic approach is language-based and involves teaching the following components:

phonological awareness, morphological awareness, orthographical knowledge, and semantic

knowledge (Masterson & Apel, 2010; McNeill, Ouellette, 2010; Wolter & Dilworth, 2014;

Wolter, & Gillon, 2017).

Phonological awareness. Phonology is the system of spoken sounds (Aaron et al.,

2008). In literacy, phonological awareness is a foundational skill for reading and writing and is

defined as “one’s ability to recognize, discriminate, and manipulate the sounds in one’s

language” (Anthony & Francis, 2005, p. 256). Hence, while phonological awareness may be

confused with phonics, they are two distinct skills (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Phonics

involves correlating letters to sound. Whereas, phonological awareness includes, but is not

limited to, the following skills: rhyming, syllable segmentation, sound blending, and alliteration

(Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Wackerle-Hollman, Schmitt, Bradfield, Rodriguez, & McConnell,

2015).

A subcomponent of phonological awareness is phonemic awareness. Schuele and

Boudreau (2008) described phonemic awareness as a “deeper level of phonological awareness”

(p. 6). A phoneme is the smallest unit of spoken sound within a language. For instance, the

56

word, bait, has three phonemes (i.e., /b/ /ā/ /t/). If a phoneme is changed, the word and meaning

would change as well (Aaron et al., 2008). A few examples of activities with phonemic

awareness include phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, phoneme isolation, and blending

phonemes into words and non-words (Ehri et al., 2001).

Phonemic awareness is important because the ability to identify sounds within words is

often the first step in spelling (Masterson & Apel, 2010). In Yeung, Liu, and Lin’s (2017) study

of kindergarten students, English language learners (N = 142) were tracked for a year. Upon the

conclusion of the study, phonemic awareness was found to be a significant predictor of spelling

(B = 0.303, SE = 0.075, p < .01, β = .321; Yeung et al., 2017, p. 4). Yeung et al.’s (2017)

findings coincide with previous and subsequent studies (e.g., Paige, Rupley, Smith, & Olinger,

2018; Yeung, Siegel, & Chan, 2013).

Furthermore, while phonemic awareness affects spelling abilities, spelling instruction

also helps to improve phonemic awareness. For example, in Martins and Silva’s (2006) study of

pre-school children (N = 90), children who received instruction on invented spelling showed

significant improvement (p = .000) within components of phonemic awareness (i.e., initial

phoneme substitution and phoneme segmentation). It must be noted, however, after third grade,

phonological awareness is not as significantly important in spelling as other linguistic

components, such as morphological awareness (Apel et al., 2012; Mann & Singson, 2003).

Morphological awareness. According to Anastasiou and Griva (2012), “The word

morphology derives from the Greek word ‘μορφολογια’ [μορφη ‘form’ + λογος ‘discourse’]” (p.

17). Thus, morphology is the discourse or study of word forms and their structures (Aaron,

Joshi, & Quatroche, 2008). For instance, the word “health” is based upon the word heal

(Treiman & Bourassa, 2000); the word, unequal, could be broken into the following morphemes

57

(i.e., units of meaning): un + equal. The morpheme, equal is a free or unbound morpheme; it

does not need additional morphemes to make sense. Conversely, un-, is a prefix and considered

bound (i.e., is not freestanding). In addition to affixes (i.e., suffixes and prefixes), bound

morphemes include roots (typically Latin-based) that cannot stand alone (e.g., spect in spectrum;

Anastasiou & Griva, 2012)

Morphological awareness is “the awareness of and ability to manipulate morphemes”

(Deacon, Tong, & Francis, 2017, p. 1). Morphological awareness is a predictor of spelling in

elementary grades (Koh, Shakory, Chen, & Deacon, 2017) and is an important component of

reading (Apel et al., 2012; Brimo, 2016; Deacon et al., 2017; Good et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013;

McLeod & Apel, 2015; Zoski & Erickson, 2017). In Apel et al.’s (2012) study (N = 56), nine to

twelve year-old-students were assessed to determine the effects of receptive vocabulary, rapid

naming skills, and metalinguistic skills upon reading and spelling. Barring age, the greatest

predictors of word recognition were morphological and orthographical awareness (Apel et al.,

2012).

In order to determine the effect of morphological instruction on spelling, Devonshire and

Fluck (2010) completed an experimental ABA study with five and eleven-year-old students (N =

215). The students were assigned a group (intervention or control), completed a spelling pretest

with 20 words, and discussed strategies they used to spell the words. Next, the intervention

group received 30 minutes of instruction on word parts. Upon the conclusion, the intervention

revealed a moderate effect-size (partial η2 = .36) on the students’ spelling abilities. Devonshire

and Fluck’s (2010) findings are in keeping with other studies that compared participants who

received morphological instruction with students who received no or traditional spelling

instruction (e.g., Anastasiou & Griva, 2012; Kirk & Gillon, 2009).

58

Orthographical knowledge. Due to the wide range of skills within orthography (e.g.,

punctuation, spelling, and conventions), orthographic knowledge is divided into two

subcategories: mental graphemic representations (word specific) and orthographic rules (Apel,

2011; Conrad et al., 2013; Loveall, Channell, Phillips, & Conners, 2013). Mental graphemic

representations (abbreviated MGR) are stored mental pictures of specific words. As stated by

Wolter and Apel (2010), MGRs are “word specific and may be a clear and complete image of the

written word that contains its graphemes or letters in appropriate order . . . or it may be an

inaccurate or less complete image” (p. 180). Examples of clear and complete images may be the

words, the or there. An example of a MGR with an inaccurate image is hypothosis for

hypothesis.

In comparison to memorized words, orthographic rules are the governing rules of writing

and spelling (Apel, 2011). For instance, -ff cannot be placed at the beginning of a word, and as

highlighted by Truss (2003), punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence. For example,

the following sentence, “A woman, without her man, is nothing,” is quite different from, “A

woman: without her, man is nothing” (Truss, 2003, p. 9). Daffern, Mackenzie, and Hemmings

(2017) studied the writings of students (N = 819) in second through fifth grade to determine if

orthographical knowledge influenced “the quality of written composition” (p. 75). They found

that between the orthographical features of grammar, spelling, and punctuation, spelling was the

greatest predictor of writing achievement (Daffern et al., 2017).

Semantic knowledge. Languages have two components: a lexicon (i.e., words) and a

syntax (i.e., word order or grammar; Gärdenfors, 2017). The understanding of the lexicon is

semantic or vocabulary knowledge. Frequently, in spelling, semantic knowledge is incorporated

to teach the difference between homophones, such as, their, there, and they’re (Masterson &

59

Apel, 2010). Yet, pairing semantic instruction or meaningful context with spelling helps to

increase orthographical learning (Kim, Al Otaiba, Puranik, Folsom, & Gruelich, 2014; Kumar &

Humphreys, 2008).

For instance, in Ouelette’s (2010) study with second graders (N = 36), participants

learned ten words. Five of the words were taught using semantic information (experimental

condition) and five words were taught by looking at the word and hearing the presenter say the

word (control condition). The participants were also placed into two practice groups: one group

read the words and one group spelled them. The type of practice had a small to medium effect

(η2 = .13), with results favoring spelling over reading. The type of instruction also had a small to

medium effect (η2 = .12) with results favoring semantic instruction (M = .567) over the control

condition (M = .481).

Spelling Acquisition Theories

With the exception of the traditional paradigm (i.e., belief that spelling is learned through

rote memorization and visualization; Treiman & Kessler, 2014), the most widely promoted

spelling acquisition theories integrate multilinguistic components into their theories. There is

much debate, however, about the order in which the multilinguistic skills are acquired and

applied to spelling. For example, developmental or phase theories view spelling acquisition as a

series of steps through which students “walk” on their way to spelling mastery. Whereas,

metalinguistic theories uphold that students develop multilinguistic skills with greater degrees of

amorphousness. This section examines both types of theories.

Phase theories. The phase theory of spelling acquisition is rooted in Piaget’s (1972)

cognitive constructivist theory (Treiman & Kessler, 2014). Piaget (1972) believed as children

interact with the world around them, they learn and progress through a series of

60

stages. However, as Piaget's theory was applied to spelling, the steps of learning spelling

included very strict stages (Treiman & Kessler, 2014). The phase model loosened the lines

between the stages and saw the steps more fluid than formal (Treiman & Kessler, 2014).

Two of the forerunners of the spelling phase theory include Henderson and Templeton

(1986), who built a spelling framework with five stages. Later, Bear and Templeton (1998)

refined the framework and segmented it into the following seven phases: (a) prephonemic, (b)

early letter name, (c) letter name, (d) within word patterns, (e) syllable juncture, and (f)

derivational constancy. During the prephonemic stage, children start to scribble and recognize

differences between upper- and lower-case letters (Bear & Templeton, 1998). The early letter

name stage includes writing first and last consonants. During the letter name stage, students

begin to write blends, spell consonant-vowel-consonant words, and identify diagraphs. Next,

they progress to within word patterns and can spell words with long vowels, complex single

syllable words, and words with diphthongs. In the syllable juncture stage, most two and three

syllable words are spelled correctly. The final stage, derivational constancy, results in most

words being spelled correctly (Bear & Templeton, 1998).

Others divided spelling acquisition differently. For instance, Erhi (2005) combined

reading and spelling and created the following four phases of acquisition: (a) prealphabetic, (b)

partial alphabetic, (c) full alphabetic, and (d) consolidated alphabetic. During the prealphabetic

stage, letters may or may not be recognized, context clues or memory is used to “read” words,

and words are spelled with scribbles (Erhi, 2014). In the partial alphabetic stage, beginning and

ending sounds are correctly identified when spelling, but decoding is still in the rudimentary

stage. Individuals in the full alphabetic stage can spell phonetically and strengthen decoding

abilities to read unfamiliar words (Erhi, 2014). Finally, in the consolidated alphabetic stage,

61

individuals have developed (and continue to increase) spelling memory, and words are

proficiently read. Unlike Bear and Templeton’s (1998) model, Erhi (2014) viewed the phases

with greater degrees of fluidity. Some have criticized phase theories for their seemingly

discontinuous spectrum, but Erhi (2014) stated, “Continuity is not disputed by phase theory…the

succession of phases resemble overlapping waves” (p. 10).

Proponents of the various phase theories support a hierarchal method to learning. The

order of acquisition is as follows: (a) phonological, (b) orthographical, (c) morphological, and (d)

etymological knowledge (Boynton-Hauerwas & Walker, 2004). However, while studies may

support Erhi’s (2005) overlapping phase theory (e.g., Devonshire, Morris, & Fluck, 2013), few

studies support Bear and Templeton’s (1998) model (e.g., Young, 2007). Rather, stage theories

have been criticized because they “do not account for the complexities of phonological

representations as they relate to spelling development” (Treiman & Bourassa, 2000, p. 13).

Nevertheless, Bear and Templeton’s (1998) model is the primary spelling acquisition model

utilized in American schools (Gentry, 2005).

Metalinguistic theories. In metalinguistic theories, people are believed to learn to spell

as lexical (word-specific) and sublexical (rule-based) knowledge develops (Apel, Henbest, &

Masterson, 2018; Perfetti & Hart, 2002). Lexical knowledge includes words that have been

memorized. If words are unfamiliar, sublexical knowledge would be applied to create the word’s

spelling (Apel et al, 2018). Unlike phase theories, metalinguistic theories skills are believed to

develop simultaneously and non-sequentially (Apel, Matterson, & Hart, 2004; Daffern, 2017b;

Wood & Connelly, 2009).

One prominent metalinguistic theory is triple word form theory (TWFT). In TWFT,

spelling is viewed as a “process of learning to abstract, apply and interconnect” concepts from

62

phonology, orthography, and morphology (Daffern, 2017b, p. 309). Hence, students may exhibit

greater gains in specific categories (e.g., spelling words with phonological strategies) at various

times.

Triple word form theory is based on studies about English misspellings (Bahr, Silliman,

Berninger, & Dow, 2012; Garcia et al., 2010; Wood & Connelly, 2009). Over the past ten years,

studies have tested the validity of the phase theory and the triple word form theory. Evidence

increasingly supports TWFT (Bahr et al., 2012; Daffern, 2017b). Bahr and colleagues (2012)

collected writing samples of 888 typically developing students. Writing errors were classified

into orthographical, phonological, and morphological categories. The patterns of the

misspellings supported a nonlinear growth that developed over time as opposed to distinct, rigid

stages (Bahr et al., 2012).

Likewise, Daffern (2017b) studied written work of over 1,100 elementary-aged students

and discovered all three linguistic skills developed in differing amounts each year. While each

grade developed phonological, morphological, and orthographical skills, lower grades showed

more growth in phonology. Students in fourth and fifth grade developed higher levels of

morphology (Bahr et al., 2012; Daffern 2017b). Hence, while Bear and Templeton’s (1998)

phase model is not supported, Bahr et al.’s (2012) and Daffern’s (2017b) study could support

either TWFT or Ehri’s (2005) overlapping phase model.

Research-based Spelling Practices

In comparison to research on reading and sentence construction, research on spelling

practices is sparse (EEF, 2017). However, there is a “law of diminishing returns operating” in

spelling, because “a mere 100 words account for 50% of the words children use when writing,

1,000 words for 89%, and 3,000 words for 97%” (Harris et al., 2017, p. 264). Any approach to

63

spelling those 3,000 words improves both spelling and reading (Harris et al., 2017; Westwood,

2014). While the traditional or visual method of teaching may be considered “old school,” since

4% of words are completely irregular (e.g., the, their, here, etc.), some whole word memorization

is necessary.

Consequently, research-based activities may be promoted by competing spelling

acquisition theories. For example, research supports cover, copy, and compare when teaching

spelling, which would be promoted in the traditional spelling acquisition theory. Conversely,

word mapping and word sorts may be supported by both stage theories and metalinguistic

approaches. In this section, the following research-based activities are discussed: structured

word inquiry; cover, copy, and compare; studying the pronunciation; word sorts; orthographical

word mapping; and multilinguistic direct instruction.

Structured word inquiry. Structured word inquiry (SWI) is a more recent spelling and

vocabulary activity that has slowly been gaining evidence (Bowers & Bowers, 2018;

Colenbrander, Parsons, Bowers, & Davis, 2021; Georgiou, Savage, Dunn, Bowers, & Parrila,

2021; Hastings & Trexler, 2021). As explained by Colenbrander and colleagues (2021), “SWI is

an inquiry-based method that makes sense of spellings by teaching students that spelling is

organized around the interrelation of morphology, etymology, and phonology” (p. 3). SWI

activities have words inserted in matrices. The etymology and definition of the word is

discussed, and affixes are utilized to create words. See Figure Three for a matrix example with

the root word “quest.”

64

Figure 3

Example of Structured Word Inquiry; www.etymonline.com was used for the definition of quest.

re

un

con

quest “to seek”

“to ask”

s

ion

s

ed

able

ing

er

Georgiou et al.’s (2021) study included forty-eight struggling readers who were not

advancing in Tier Two RTI. The students were placed into three groups. Group A received an

intervention based largely on phonics (i.e., Simplicity). Group B received SWI instruction.

Group C received their school’s general RTI instruction (e.g., Jolly Phonics). Upon the

conclusion, Group A and B showed more growth in word reading and morphological awareness

than Group C (Georgiou et al., 2021). SWI had the largest effect size on the delayed post-test

(SWI: Morphological Relatedness: d = 0.71, Word Reading: d = 0.98; Simplicity: Morphological

Relatedness: d = 0.58, Word Reading: d = 0.36; School RTI Instruction: Morphological

Relatedness: d = 0.21, Word Reading: d = 0.56; Georgiou et al., 2021).

Cover, copy, compare. One research-based spelling activity is cover, copy, and compare

(Hochstetler et al., 2013; Jaspers et al., 2012; Joseph et al., 2012; Konrad & Joseph, 2014;

Manfred, McLaughlin, Derby, & Everson, 2015; Skinner, McLaughlin, & Logan, 1997).

Skinner and colleagues (1997) described CCC as a three-step process of viewing and covering an

“academic stimulus” (i.e., the spelling word), making an “academic response” (i.e., writing it),

and evaluating the academic response (p. 296).

Programs and researchers have adapted CCC to add or change steps (Cates et al., 2007;

Joseph et al., 2012). For instance, modeling may be included before the word is covered (e.g.,

65

Grafman & Cates, 2010; Konrad & Joseph, 2014) or verbally spelling the word may take place

(Kearney & Drabman, 1993). The Orton-Gillingham method includes tracing words before

covering them. Despite the adaptations, the basic steps generally include the following: looking

at, covering, writing, and uncovering the word. The word is then compared with the correct

spelling. If the word is spelled incorrectly, the word may be copied several times or CCC may

once again be completed (Cates et al., 2007).

Studies have consistently supported positive results when implementing CCC to help

reinforce spelling with elementary and high school students and students with special needs

(Breach, McLaughlin, & Derby, 2015; Hochstetler et al., 2013; Jaspers et al., 2012; Zannikos,

McCallum, Schmitt, & Pearson, 2018; Zielinski, Mclaughlin, & Derby, 2012). In studies, CCC

has shown to be more effective than other common spelling activities, such as, spelling

worksheets (Jaspers et al., 2012), saying and writing words (Nies & Belfiore, 2006), and

activities in basal programs (Schermerhorn & McLaughlin, 1997).

Pronunciation of words. The pronunciation of words as a spelling activity was

originally based on Ehri’s (1992) theory that spelling is learned as grapheme-phoneme

connections are acquired and mentally stored. Irregular words are often difficult to remember

because they deviate from the typical written representations (Landerl, Thaler, & Reitsma, 2008).

Therefore, researchers have studied the effects of teaching the spelling of irregular words by

changing their pronunciation to match their spelling. Landerl and colleagues (2008) provided the

following example:

In the word Wednesday, two letters (d and e) are silent, that is they do not correspond to a

sound in the pronunciation /’wenzdei/. One way to store these silent letters is to create a

regularized pronunciation of the word spelling, in which the two silent letters are

66

pronounced, i.e. /’wednesdei/. For this artificial spelling pronunciation, in which the

match between letters and sounds is so to speak optimised, the bonding between letters

and sounds could proceed as for any regular word spelling. Further on, activating the

spelling pronunciation /’wednesdei/ could function as an important intermediate step in

reading or spelling Wednesday. (p. 295-296)

The pronunciation of words according to spelling has been effective with elementary

students whose first language is German (Landerl et al., 2008), Dutch (Bosman, van Hell, &

Verhoeven, 2006; Hilte & Reitsma, 2006), and English (Drake & Ehri, 1984). Higher education

students can also benefit from this activity. For instance, in Ocal and Ehri’s (2017) study of

college age students (N = 42), the experimental group was trained to practice saying words

phonologically, while the control group read the words as normal. Upon the conclusion, the

experimental group had higher recall of words, letters, and schwa vowels than the control group.

Word sorts. Word sorts is a research-based practice for spelling and reading (Bear et al.,

2012; Bear & Templeton, 1998; Harris et al., 2017; Rasinski, Rupley & Nichols, 2008; Wolter &

Green, 2013) and requires students to sort a series of words based on orthographical,

morphological, and phonological similarities and differences (Bear et al., 2004). As students

categorize words, an understanding of word patterns is facilitated (Joseph, 2002). Three primary

types of word sorts focus on sound, pattern, and meaning (Bear et al., 2012). Sound sorts

typically have pictures that must be categorized according to the specific sounds at the

beginning, middle, or end (Bear et al., 2012). Pattern sorts are used with printed words and

students need to sort the words according to the spelling pattern. Finally, concept sorts connect

vocabulary understanding with spelling. Therefore, instead of grouping around sounds and

spelling, students group words according to specific meanings or concepts (Bear et al., 2012).

67

In Atkinson, Zhang, Phillips, and Zeller’s (2014) study (N = 39), college students in a

developmental ELA class completed word study activities for five weeks, 100 minutes per week.

The control group received instruction in the prescribed curriculum, which focused on

vocabulary development (Atkinson et al., 2014). Upon the conclusion, a t-test revealed a

significant difference between the experimental and control group (t = 6.85, p < .001). The

experimental group’s spelling levels increased from the “early to middle derivational relations

stage, which is an advanced level of spelling development as compared with the pre‐test level at

the middle to late syllables and affixes stage” (Atkinson et al., 2014, p. 442).

Word mapping. Word mapping, or orthographical word mapping, is another best

practice (Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O'Hara, & Donnelly, 1996; Murray & Steinen, 2011; Niolaki,

Masterson, & Terzopoulos, 2014; Keesey, Konrad, & Joseph, 2015; Weiser & Mathes, 2011).

Originally developed by Gaskins and colleagues (1996), word mapping is the process of students

overlaying sounds with graphemes. Murray and Steinen (2011) suggested the following steps:

(a) pronounce the word by syllables; (b) stretch each syllable; (c) segment the phonemes

in the syllable; (d) count the phonemes; and (e) draw blanks to represent each phoneme,

with slashes between the syllables. To recognize how the actual spelling maps the

phonological structure, the student is helped to (f) record the graphemes of the standard

spelling on the blanks, marking any silent letters, (g) transcribe the spelling outside the

word map, (h) study the irregular mapping elements, and (i) check his or her knowledge

of the word’s meaning. (p. 300)

When implemented into the classroom, word mapping may take several forms. For

instance, Gaskin and colleagues (1997) suggested drawing lines from sounds to the correct

spelling of the word. Variations of word mapping could also be done in word boxes or Elkonin

68

boxes (see, for example, Alber-Morgan, Joseph, Kanotz, Rouse, & Sawyer, 2016; Kessy et al.

2015).

Word work with multilinguistic instruction. The final research-based spelling activity

is explicit modeling and instruction (Daffern, 2017a; Gunning, 1995; Joshi et al., 2008-2009;

McLeod & Apel, 2015; Wallace, 2006; Westwood, 2014; Zoski & Erickson, 2017). In the

younger grades or with struggling spellers, teachers should provide explicit phonics instruction

(Vadasy & Sanders, 2013; Westwood, 2014). Therefore, students may begin writing the root

words, which they sounded out, and change onsets to create rhymes (Gunning, 1995). They

could start with a word and change specific sounds (Joshi et al., 2008-2009). For instance, they

may change pig to pit and pit to pot. Students may also begin with a root word and add prefixes

and suffixes (Zoski & Erickson, 2017). For example, they may have to change fix to prefix or fix

to fixed. As students work with words, instruction is given. Hence, students learn morphological

terms and orthographical rules (Joshi et al., 2008-2009).

Devonshire, Morris, and Fluck (2013) completed an experiment (N = 120) to study the

effectiveness of multilinguistic instruction (with an emphasis on morphology, phonology, and

orthographical rules) in comparison to traditional phonics instruction. Students, ages 5-7 years

old, were split into two groups. Group A first received multilinguistic instruction, while Group

B had phonics instruction with their teacher. Then the groups reversed, and Group B had the

intervention treatment. The students were tested three times, at the beginning (T1), after 6 weeks

(when the groups were about to switch; T2), and at the end (T3). There was a significant

difference (ŋp2 = .89), favoring the multilinguistic group, in spelling and reading between T1 and

T2.

Teacher’s Spelling Beliefs and Practices

69

Several researchers previously explored teacher’s spelling beliefs and their instructional

practices. Fresch’s (2007) survey study (N = 440) revealed a disconnect between beliefs and

instruction in spelling. For instance, 77% of American teachers used a common spelling list, but

only 49% believed it was an effective approach to spelling. Unlike Fresch’s (2007) findings,

McNeill and Kirk’s (2014) study in New Zealand (N = 405) reported 60% of their participants

individualized spelling instruction. Yet, teachers still illustrated a mismatch between beliefs and

practice. For example, many elementary educators reported that phonological awareness and

orthographical skills were important, but they did not address those skills in class (McNeill &

Kirk, 2014).

According to Graham et al. (2008), American elementary educators (N = 168) revealed

approximately 27% of their students had difficulty with spelling. However, 42% reported

making no adaptations to the school’s curriculum (Graham et al., 2008). While not as high as

Graham et al.’s (2008) findings, Doyle, Zhang, and Mattatall’s (2015) study of the Canadian

teachers (N = 56) found 32% of the teachers made no curriculum adaptions to spelling. Yet,

78% of them did not believe that the curriculum adequately addressed spelling (Doyle et al.,

2015). Teachers cited the reason for the disconnect between practice and beliefs to the

following: lack of instructional time, materials shortage, limited support, lack of research-based

spelling curriculum, and lack of the necessary linguistic knowledge (Fresch, 2003; Fresch, 2007;

Doyle et al., 2015; McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Herrington & Macken-Horarik, 2015).

Nevertheless, as exemplified in Doyle et al.’s (2015) study, the majority of elementary

teachers believe spelling is important (participants averaged a 3.1 on a Likart scale, with 0 being

not at all important and 4 being very important). The self-reported average time spent teaching

spelling reported in studies varied from 46 minutes (Doyle et al., 2015) to 90 minutes (Graham et

70

al., 2008). It must be noted, however, there is a great degree of variability of time taught with

spelling instruction, with some educators having more than 90 minutes and some with less than

10 minutes of spelling per week (Graham et al., 2008).

Factors Guiding Instruction

While there are a number of studies focusing on how educators teach spelling and

specific research-based instructional literacy practices, few studies have been conducted on

specific factors affecting teacher instruction. The published research, however, supports

classroom instruction as the product of many influencers. For instance, Anderson and

Standerford (2012) studied agents of change (N = 3) and discovered three primary factors (i.e.,

school policy, teacher workload, and teacher beliefs) affected how or if research-based spelling

practices were adopted.

Likewise, while not specifically related to spelling, Boschman, McKenney, and Voogt’s

(2014) studied kindergarten teachers (N = 9) as they integrated technology. The results found

lesson instruction to be influenced by the following three components: “(a) existing orientations

(knowledge, beliefs and practices); (b) external priorities (what priorities from external

stakeholders have to be addressed), and (c) practical concerns” (Boschman et al., 2014, p. 395).

Of those three components, practical concerns had more influence on instruction than existing

orientations or external priorities (Boschman et al., 2014). Practical concerns as a guiding

instructional factor coincides with other research (e.g., Yarnall & Fusco, 2014).

A variety of other studies have explored smaller, specific factors that may affect teacher

instruction and performance. For instance, Johari, Yean-Tan, and Tjik-Zulkarnain (2018)

studied (N = 302) the effect of the teacher’s work-life balance (i.e., the ability to feel comfortable

with commitments from work and home) on their job performance. Work-life balance had a

71

medium effect (R² = .202). Other researchers have explored the effect of the given classroom

time on instruction (e.g., Assude, 2005; Leong & Chick, 2011). However, most studies on

smaller, specific components can easily be placed within the instructional framework of

Boschman et al.’s (2014) theoretical model or into larger, pedagogical frameworks, such as the

model proposed by James and Pollard (2011b).

Mary James and Andrew Pollard were directors of various projects within the United

Kingdom’s Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP), a ten-year educational

research initiative (James & Pollard, 2011a). One of James and Pollard’s (2011b) reports

focused on discussing and explaining a conceptual model of pedagogy. Within James and

Pollard’s (2011b) framework, pedagogy was not just teaching beliefs, but expressed “the

contingent relationship between teaching and learning . . . and does not treat teaching as

something that can be considered separately from an understanding of how learners learn” (p.

280). To form a picture of pedagogy and understand pedagogical influences within classrooms,

James and Pollard (2011b) reviewed 22 studies completed by the TLRP and other published

studies. Upon the conclusion, a conceptual model of pedagogical factors within educational

systems was formed. The factors were as follows: “(1) educational values and purposes; (2)

curriculum pedagogy and assessment; (3) personal and social processes and relationships; (4)

teachers and policies” (James & Pollard, 2011b, p. 279).

Schools as Institutions

To borrow a term from business, schools are considered an institution (Meyer & Rowan,

2006). Institutions, unlike organizations or companies, “rise out of joint human activity and are

constituted of sets of symbols, both cognitive (knowledge and belief) and moral (‘moral

authority’), that fix action into patterns that extend beyond the behavior of any individual”

72

(Meyer & Rowan, 2006, p. 34). As a cognitive idea, education is viewed by many as a necessary

step to well-paying jobs. Morally, educational systems were created and preserved to help

provide children with the necessary ethics and knowledge to become productive citizens.

As an institution, social pressures, such as political rulings, may have greater influence

than solely fiscal pressures (Suddaby, 2013). For instance, in this era of school accountability,

schools or states in America cannot negate the mandatory testing simply because it is expensive.

While schools need to understand and adhere to budgets, their job is not to make money, but to

serve the public. Moreover, within an institution, as Suddaby (2015) stated, “Human agency . . .

is ‘embedded’ or made subordinate to shared norms that, once institutionalized, take on a rule-

like status” (p. 93). For instance, learning styles (e.g., auditory learners, visual learns, and

kinesthetic learners) is frequently discussed in undergraduate classes and in teaching methods

textbooks. Thus, despite the lack of supporting research (e.g., Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, &

Bjork, 2008; Willingham, Hughes, & Dobolyi, 2015), learning styles has achieved a rule-like

status and is often an expected component in the elementary education classroom. Within the

context of this study, the various types of social pressures (i.e., environmental and behavioral

factors) were explored to determine how the institutional factors influence spelling instruction.

The idea of schools as institutions is closely related to the environmental and behavioral

components within the previous theoretical section. For example, in Van den Hurk, Houtveen,

and Van de Grift’s (2017) study of Danish teachers (N = 109) in 19 schools, the teachers’ beliefs

about reading fluency was tested against their practices. Therefore, the teachers first took a

survey. Then their classes were observed. Van den Hurk and colleagues (2017) found teacher

knowledge and beliefs only accounted for “8% of the variance in teachers’ classroom behaviour

in teaching fluent reading” (p. 1231). Hence, in spelling, teacher knowledge, while vitally

73

important, is only one component affecting instruction (Ham & Kim, 2015; Nichols, Zellner,

Willson, Mergen, & Young, 2005; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010).

Summary

Spelling has historically been thought to be a visual exercise in which entire words

should be memorized. Since English has a deep orthography, a multilinguistic approach to

spelling has been associated with higher levels of student learning (Daffern, 2015; Moats, 2014).

Researchers have suggested that a multilinguistic approach is not being utilized due to a lack of

teacher knowledge (e.g., McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Herrington & Macken-Horarik, 2015).

Furthermore, some research shows a disconnect between teacher beliefs about effective spelling

instruction and their spelling instruction (McNeill & Kirk, 2014). As agents within institutions,

other factors (e.g., state and school policies, school staff, students, etc.) influence teacher

instruction (Ham & Kim, 2015; James & Pollard, 2011). Therefore, Bandura’s (1986) social

cognitive theory provides a lens to examine and explain the interaction between environmental,

cognitive, and behavioral components and how they influence spelling instruction. This study is

different from previous studies, because instead of focusing solely on teacher content knowledge

and student spelling knowledge or spelling instructional strategies and student growth, the focus

is spelling instruction within organizational systems.

74

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

Overview

The purpose of this explanatory, embedded multiple case study was to understand how

personal, environmental, and behavioral influencers shaped how third and fourth grade educators

teach spelling. Since schools may vary greatly, from administrative expectations to student

demographics, an embedded, multiple case study provided an in-depth view of three diverse

schools (i.e., cases) in Delaware. This chapter describes the design and the guiding research

questions. To allow for duplication, settings, participants, procedures, researcher’s role, and data

collection methods are discussed. Data analysis, trustworthiness, and ethical considerations are

also explained.

Design

When discussing research design, Silverman (2010) stated, “The qualitative/quantitative

distinction seems to assume a fixed preference or predefined evaluation of what is ‘good’ . . .

research when, as we all know, methods are only more or less appropriate to particular research

questions” (p. 9). Within this study, the topic and research questions were first decided upon.

Next, design components were evaluated to determine the best fit. The rationale for each design

element is found below.

Qualitative Design

A qualitative design was chosen because numerous quantitative studies have previously

focused on spelling acquisition (e.g., Bahr, Sillian, Berninger, & Dow, 2012; Daffern, 2017b;

Devonshire & Fluck, 2010) and effective spelling activities (e.g., Cordewener, Verhoeven, &

Bosman, 2016; McLeod & Apel, 2015; McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Wolter & Dilworth, 2014). At

this time, studying instructional spelling practices of teachers with a quantitative method would

75

not fully address the “how”: How is spelling being taught? How does the teachers’ organization

and classroom components affect their given instructional approaches to spelling?

Previous researchers utilized surveys to understand classroom spelling instruction

(McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Fresch, 2007). Yet, as Yin (2018) stated, “Survey research can try to

deal with phenomenon and context, but a survey’s ability to investigate the context is extremely

limited” (p. 25). Indeed, numerous factors influence teacher instruction (Anderson &

Standerford, 2012; Grady et al., 2007), factors that may not be included in a survey with priori

variables. As the qualitative study was developed “to study the experiences of real cases

operating in real situations” (Stake, 2006, p. 3), a qualitative approach helps to develop a deep,

holistic understanding of spelling instruction within its naturalized organizational (i.e., school)

setting.

Case Study Approach

Within qualitative research, Creswell (2013) identified five prominent approaches:

narrative, ethnography, grounded study, phenomenology, and case study. Since narrative studies

learn information through stories, and ethnographies focus on “human societies and culture”

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 29), neither were options for this study. The last three approaches,

however, were potentially feasible. Grounded studies produce a theoretical model of a distinct

process (Creswell, 2013). Given the pragmatic nature and boundedness of this study, however, a

grounded study format was not a good fit. A phenomenological approach would help to

understand the “essence” of teaching spelling (Creswell, 2013), but a deep understanding of

context (i.e., environment) may be difficult to develop.

Case studies, however, investigate “a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth

and within its real-world context” (Yin, 2018, p. 24). The intention of this study is to develop an

76

in-depth understanding of the contemporary phenomenon, spelling instruction. Furthermore, this

study met two additional case study requirements, as identified by Yin (2018): (a) research

questions asked “How?” or “Why?” and (b) context was difficult to separate from participants.

Bounded system. A key component of case study research is the idea of boundedness

(Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). Yin (2018) stated, “Bounding the case . . . will help to determine the

scope of your data collection and, in particular, how you will distinguish data about the subject

of your case study (the ‘phenomenon’) from data external to the case (the ‘context’)” (p. 46).

Cases may be bound by time, location, definition, or context (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017; Creswell,

2013; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014; Stake, 1995). The cases in this study were bound by

time and location. The participants (i.e., sub-units of analysis) were third or fourth grade

teachers who worked in traditional schools (opposed to online formats) in one of three physical

schools (i.e., main units of analysis) in Delaware.

Units of analysis. An important case study distinction from other types of qualitative

studies is the unit of analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As Merriam and Tisdell (2015) stated,

“The unit of analysis, not the topic of investigation, characterizes a case study” (p. 38; emphasis

in original). Researchers can analyze case study data as a holistic study or as a study with

embedded units. Holistic case studies provide an overarching understanding of the phenomenon

(Yin, 2018). However, since the unit of analysis in holistic case studies is the case, it is

susceptible to slippage (i.e., shifting of case nature) and bias (Yin, 2018).

Embedded case studies may involve both quantitative and qualitative analysis (Scholz &

Tietje, 2002) and help decrease researcher bias and anchors the study’s focus (Meyer, 2001; Yin,

2018). In embedded case studies, subunits (e.g., processes or participants) are used to develop

contrasts between and within cases (Meyer, 2001). Subunits provide greater insights and more

77

opportunities of analysis than a holistic case study (Yin, 2018). As previously mentioned, the

individual educators (i.e., teachers, literacy experts, and principals) are the sub-units of analysis

as they help to understand how spelling instruction takes place within the main unit (i.e., the

individual school).

Multiple case study rationale. Case studies may take the format of single or multiple

case studies. Single case studies have inherent weaknesses. For instance, they need other cases

to provide additional context (Stake, 2006) and may have observer and “information processing

bias” (Meyer, 2001, p. 332). As this researcher wished to understand the reasons behind spelling

instruction, a single case would not be sufficient. Rather, to add robustness and validity (Miles

et al., 2014; Yin, 2018), this study was a multiple case study. Teachers have various levels of

freedom and expectations within different schools (Kirkpatrick & Johnson, 2014). An educator

may teach spelling with a certain approach in one school, but utilize a different approach in

another school. A multiple case study was an appropriate format to examine how personal

factors and context interact to produce spelling instruction within the main unit of analysis (i.e.,

schools).

Case study purpose. Depending upon the researcher, differing social science research

purposes may be identified, such as, theory seeking (Bassey, 1999), causes of behavior

(Strydom, 2013), or theory testing (Bassey, 1990; Eisenhardt, 2002). Three commonly identified

purposes are exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory (Strydom, 2013; Yin, 2018). Exploratory

research generates initial research into “uncharted territory” and may be extensively studied in

future research (Strydom, 2013). In descriptive research, as Strydom (2013) stated, “The

researcher begins with a well-defined subject and conducts research to describe the phenomenon

accurately, and the final outcome of a descriptive study should be a detailed picture of the

78

subject” (p. 155). Thus, the phenomenon, not cause and effect relationships, are the primary

focus of descriptive studies. Finally, explanatory studies build upon exploratory and descriptive

research to develop, describe, and test casual relationships (Strydom, 2013; Yin, 2018).

Prior research has focused on spelling instruction (e.g., Doyle et al., 2014; Herrington, &

Macken-Horarik, 2015; McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Moats, 2014). Therefore, an exploratory case

study would not address a gap in the literature. Hence, this study could be descriptive or

explanatory. Exploratory and descriptive research have both been criticized for, as Bartlett and

Vavrus (2017) argued, not rising “to the level of significance expected of most social science

research” (p. 32). Therefore, to add validity and to explain casual relationships, the purpose of

this explanatory, embedded, multiple case study was to provide explanations for the instructional

spelling choices of teachers.

Research Questions

The following primary and sub-questions guided this study:

Primary Question: What internal and external factors shape the spelling instructional

practices of third and fourth grade teachers?

Sub-Question 1: How are spelling instructional practices of third and fourth grade

teachers shaped by personal factors?

Sub-Question 2: How are spelling instructional practices of third and fourth grade

teachers shaped by the classroom’s environmental and behavioral factors?

Sub-Question 3: How are spelling instructional practices of third and fourth grade

teachers shaped by the educational institution’s environmental and behavioral factors?

Setting

Three schools in Delaware were chosen for this study. Each school was chosen to help

79

ensure maximum variation and thereby increase depth of understanding and the transferability of

findings. The schools used different literacy curriculums and spelling approaches, came from

different districts, and had varying levels of teacher instructional freedom. All schools were

given pseudonyms. Washington is a kindergarten through fifth grade public school. Jackson is a

third through fifth grade public school. Lincoln is a private school with Pre-Kindergarten

through twelfth grade. Each school is accredited by the state of Delaware.

Curricular Decisions

When determining which new curriculum to purchase, both Washington and Jackson

formed committees with teachers, parents, content-area specialists, administrators, and the

district’s curriculum director. Several curriculums have a year-long pilot in different classrooms,

and curriculum may be aligned to ensure it complies with the Common Core Standards. For

both school districts, this process may occur once every five years. Teachers from both districts

were expected to adhere to the curriculum. At the time of the study, Washington used the

American Reading Company, and Jackson used Bookworms by Open Up Resources.

Before the 2018-2019 school year, Lincoln occasionally made minor adjustments to

curriculum (e.g., changing their science curriculum in several grades); however, their curriculum

had mostly remained unchanged for the past twenty-five years. Since there was only one teacher

per elementary grade, teachers had high levels of teacher autonomy. Therefore, kindergarten and

first grade used Abeka reading and spelling. Second grade used Abeka reading and Association

of Christian Schools International (ASCI) spelling. Third and fourth grade used Bob Jones

reading and ACSI spelling. If affordable supplemental curricular materials were found, teachers

could request school funds to purchase it. If teachers did not like the curriculum, as long as the

same standards were being addressed, they did not have to use it with fidelity.

80

Over the summer of 2018, however, the teachers and elementary administrator re-

examined curriculum and agreed upon a common format for teaching literacy. Reading for first

through third grade was switched to Rooted in Reading, a teacher-made curriculum from

Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT). Spelling was still taught as its own subject. Abeka Spelling was

used in first grade; an Orton-Gillingham influenced TPT curriculum was used in second and

third grade; ACSI Spelling was used in fourth grade. Despite the curriculum, within the

elementary school, spelling work was typically assigned during small group time or given as

homework.

Teacher and Student Demographics

As seen on Table 1 and 2, Jackson had the highest percentage of disadvantaged students

(i.e., those from low SES and minority backgrounds). Students from minority or low SES

backgrounds have higher rates of high school dropouts (NCES, 2018), more behavioral referrals

(Losen Hodson Keith, Morrison, & Belway, 2015; Martinez, McMahon, & Treger, 2016), and

lower rates of academic achievement (NCES, 2018). The variations between the student

populations may help illustrate how (if at all) students influence the teacher’s spelling

instructional choices. To be considered a student from a low SES background in Delaware, their

families must qualify for temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) or supplemental

nutrition assistance program (Delaware DOE, 2014).

The majority of teachers at Washington had their master’s degrees. At Jackson, over

40% had their master’s degree. Lincoln had the lowest number of teachers with their master’s

degrees. While not all master’s degree programs are equally beneficial for teachers (White, Fox,

& Isenberg, 2011), additional education is a type of professional development. Therefore, those

81

with a master’s degree may or may not have a deeper understanding of research-based practices

(Goldman, Aldridge, & Worthington, 2004; White et al., 2011).

For additional information, see Table 1 for student racial demographics and Table 2 for

school information. Since Delaware is a small state, to protect the school’s confidentiality, the

number of students in each school and number of teachers per school was not included (All

information for Jackson Elementary and Washington Elementary was retrieved from Delaware

Department of Education (2019)). All information was given as a range to help protect the sites’

confidentiality. Information about Lincoln School was retrieved from personal communication

with the principal on May 2, 2018.

Table 1

Student Racial and SES Demographics by School

School White Black Latino Other Low SES

percentage

Washington 65-70% 10-15% 20-25% 0-5% 25-30%

Jackson 45-50% 20-25% 25-30% 0-5% 45-50%

Lincoln 92-97% 1-5% 1-5% 0-5% 0%

Table 2

School and Teacher Information

School Teachers with

master’s degrees

Percent of

female teachers

Spelling or Literacy

Curriculum

Washington 70-80% 85-90% American Reading Company

Jackson 40-50% 75-80% Bookworms

Lincoln 35-45% 90-100% * ASCI Spelling

*Since Lincoln is a Pre-Kindergarten through twelfth grade school, with middle school

beginning in fifth grade, this percentage is just for grades Pre-Kindergarten through fourth grade.

Washington Elementary School

82

In 2017, Washington Elementary School implemented curriculum from the American

Reading Company. The American Reading Company (ARC) teaches thematic units across

curriculum (reading, writing, social studies, and science). Reading had a phonics-based

approach. Assessments were administered to determine student level and teacher instruction.

Spelling instruction was supposed to occur as a direct result of student spelling errors. Spelling

was embedded in writing class and an incidental approach was utilized. As discussed in the

previous chapter, an incidental approach often means spelling instruction may be infrequent and

may or may not take place. Consequently, it was feasible that an ELA classroom be observed for

an extended period of time and spelling instruction never seen.

Administration was expected to complete one informal observation for every teacher

twice per week. The observations could be during any instructional block or subject. Both

Washington and Jackson Elementary schools met state requirements for two formal observations

for experienced teachers (more than three years teaching) and three formal observations for

inexperienced teachers (three or fewer years of teaching).

Jackson Elementary School

In the early 2000s, Jackson Elementary teachers were expected to teach using a script.

The script was enforced by walk through evaluations (between 1-3 evaluations per month).

While the school no longer adhered to teacher scripts, teachers were expected to have 45 minutes

of whole group literacy instruction, 45 minutes of spelling and writing, and 45 minutes of small

group instruction. If a walk-through observation was completed, the lesson was expected to

align with the curriculum’s given plan. Each administrator (principal, vice-principal, and

reading coach) had district expectations to complete one walk through observation for each

teacher every month; once again, except for the reading coach, the observations were not ELA

83

specific.

During the 2019-2020 school year, Jackson implemented the Bookworms curriculum.

Previous to Bookworms, spelling instruction took place with word work and spelling worksheets.

There was not a separate spelling class; the weekly assessment was a vocabulary assessment with

the spelling words. Therefore, the spelling quiz measured understanding of the spelling words’

definitions as opposed to the student’s ability to spell the words correctly. With the

implementation of Bookworms, however, spelling instruction became a daily part of the ELA

block with a weekly spelling quiz. The words from the quiz were taken from the story they were

reading. The weekly spelling quiz typically had six words.

Lincoln Preparatory School

Lincoln Preparatory School used different curriculum in third and fourth grade. In third

grade, an Orton-Gillingham inspired curriculum from TPT was used; the curriculum focused on

phonics and word parts (roots and affixes). In fourth grade, ACSI Spelling had components of a

traditional spelling paradigm (e.g., a single class list) but integrated linguistic activities into

lessons. Both grades formally quizzed their students in spelling once a week. As per the teacher

handbook, administration was expected to complete two teacher observations (one announced,

one unannounced) during the school year. Since Lincoln School was a private school, however,

observations were not linked with Delaware’s teacher rating system. Thus, if observations did

not take place, there were no negative consequences.

Participants

There were a total of 16 participants (i.e., subunits of analysis) to help ensure the data

reached the saturation point (Creswell, 2013). The participants were comprised of elementary

education principals (n = 3), literacy experts (n = 3), third grade teachers (n = 5), and fourth

84

grade teachers (n = 5). Lincoln only had one third grade and one fourth grade teacher. Two

third grade teachers and two fourth grade teachers were chosen from Washington and Jackson

Elementary schools.

As embedded units, four teachers (two for Lincoln), a literacy expert, and principal

served as a case study from each site. Since four to ten cases are the suggested amount for

multiple case studies (Stake, 2006), four to six participants provided sufficient data from which

to draw conclusions about each site. Grade-level leaders influence instructional choices of other

teachers (Anderson & Standerford, 2012). Thus, when selecting grade level teachers,

administrators were asked to choose the grade level leader as one of the two teachers. As

Lincoln only had one third and one fourth grade teacher, both teachers were invited to participate

in the study.

Additionally, the principal was asked to identify a literacy expert. The literacy expert is

someone (e.g., reading specialist) who helps answer teacher questions about literacy and aids in

the selection and implementation of the reading curriculum. Nationally, 76% of elementary

education teachers are females (NCIS, 2015). Since the schools in the study all had percentages

above that average (see Table 2), it was expected most participants would be female. Please see

Table 3 for further information on each participant.

Table 3

Description of Participant Sample

Site Participant Role Gender Ethnicity Degree

Washington Michelle Principal Female Caucasian Masters

Sarah Literacy

Expert

Female Caucasian Masters

Samantha 3rd Grade

Lead

Teacher

Female Caucasian Doctorate

85

Jasmine 3rd Grade

Non-lead

Teacher

Female Latino &

African

American

Bachelor

Dawn 4th Grade

Lead

Teacher

Female Caucasian Masters

Ashley 4th Grade

Non-Lead

Teacher

Female Caucasian Masters

Jackson Matthew Principal Male Caucasian Masters

Jessica Literacy

Expert

Female Caucasian Masters

Mary 3rd Grade

Lead

Teacher

Female Caucasian Bachelor

Kayla 3rd Grade

Non-Lead

Teacher

Female Caucasian Bachelor

Joanna 4th Grade

Lead

Teacher

Female Caucasian Bachelor

Andrew 4th Grade

Non-Lead

Teacher

Male Native

American &

Caucasian

Masters

Lincoln Katie Principal Female Caucasian Masters

Marissa Literacy

Expert

Female Caucasian Masters

Emma 3rd Grade

Teacher

Female Latino &

Caucasian

Bachelor

LeAnne 4th Grade

Teacher

Female Caucasian Bachelor

Procedures

Prior to receiving IRB permission, either the superintendent or the assistant

superintendent in the public schools was contacted with an explanation of this study and a

request to complete this study in a school in their district (see Appendix Q). Expectations as far

as parent consent were discussed; specifically, since this researcher was observing the teacher

but neither interacting nor collecting data on students, districts may or may not have required

parent permission for the classes observed. The private school did have a superintendent.

86

Rather, the principal acted as the superintendent. Therefore, the principal of the school was

contacted and asked for school permission. He then sought permission from the school board on

this researcher’s behalf.

After receiving IRB approval from Liberty University (see Appendix P), the interview

questions were piloted. Next, principals were formally invited to participate and were provided

with a consent form (see Appendix W). If they agreed and signed the consent form, this

researcher met with them to discuss possible participants and observation protocols. With regard

to the participants, the principals from Washington and Jackson Elementary schools were asked

to recommend a literacy expert and one grade level chair and one non-grade level chair from

each third and fourth grade. Since Lincoln School only had one teacher per elementary grade,

the elementary literacy expert and third grade and fourth grade teachers were invited to

participate. All participants signed a consent form (Appendix T-V), which informed them that

they may withdraw from the study at any time. Once the consent forms were signed, the literacy

experts, principals, and teachers took Fresch’s (2003) spelling survey and completed a

demographic questionnaire. The principal was provided with the tentative dates that were

planned to complete the observations.

Next, the teachers, literacy experts, and principals were interviewed to gain an

understanding of their school infrastructure and expectations. The interviews took place at the

educator’s place of work (either their classroom or office) at a time that was convenient for them.

If the educator’s place of work was not an option, the meeting was held using online

conferencing software (i.e., Zoom). Two recorders were used to record the interviews. The

literacy experts and teachers had an initial interview lasting approximately 30-40 minutes. The

principal interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes.

87

Once the teachers were interviewed, their classrooms were observed three times. To gain

an understanding in development of spelling instruction throughout a week’s or unit’s time, the

observations took place in three subsequent spelling lessons. Subsequent lessons, however, did

not necessarily mean three days in a row. Rather, as spelling lessons may have taken place at

irregular times, the observations may have been spread out over a longer period of time.

If spelling instruction was embedded within the ELA time block, the entire ELA lesson

was observed. Since none of the three schools had a regularly scheduled spelling time block, the

observations were scheduled with the teachers. After the lesson, lesson plans and accompanying

worksheets had a picture taken and saved as a password-protected document. Observational

notes and analytic memos (Appendix F-H were typed into the observation protocol paper on a

password protected computer. Any questions or needed clarifications were asked via e-mail.

After the last observation, if needed, a short informal meeting was held to discuss and clarify any

further questions. Throughout the observations, alignment between the answers from Fresch’s

(2003) spelling survey and teacher instruction were compared. To “ensure consistency of

interpretations,” there was a second coder (Saldana & Omasta, 2018, p. 5). As the data was

coded and categorized, member checking of observations and interviews occurred to ensure

correct interpretations of words.

The Researcher's Role

As a human instrument, I admit I have naturally ingrained biases (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). To help decrease bias within my research and to be transparent about them so the reader

knows what biases inherently influence analysis, I engaged in memoing (Creswell, 2013). The

private school in this study was the school from which I graduated. I also worked there for a

year as an interim high school Spanish and Physical Science teacher. My experiences there have

88

been largely positive. I am friends with several teachers in the two public school districts;

therefore, before the study began, I had a basic understanding of how their district functioned. I

have also been trained in the American Reading Company’s curriculum.

As an elementary and special education teacher, I believe spelling should be taught with a

multilinguistic approach that uses morphology, phonology, orthography, and etymology.

Therefore, direct instruction and research-based activities, such as word sorts, word mapping,

and structured word inquiry, should be utilized. However, I also concur with Harris et al. (2017)

that certain words, such as irregular sight words, need whole word memorization.

Many of my instructional practices have been shaped by my continuing education classes

(What does research say?) and by my experiences both as a student (What has helped me to

learn?) and as a teacher (What has precipitated students having “lightbulb” moments?). I

continually strive to learn, apply, and improve strategies. Yet, how I teach lessons will vary

dramatically depending upon the context. In schools with high degrees of teacher autonomy, I

am more likely to take chances. In public schools, the importance of state testing often means

copious amounts of classroom time is spent completing practice tests instead of learning.

Therefore, throughout my teaching career, I have seen how personal, behavioral, and

environmental factors interact to influence my instructional practices.

Data Collection

Quantitative research derives meaning from numbers and statistical data, and qualitative

research derives meaning from words (Braun & Clarke, 2013). To add robustness to the study,

data will be both quantitative and qualitative. This section further clarifies the data collection

process, which was briefly outlined in the previous procedures section. Specifically, the

89

following is discussed: Fresch’s (2003) survey, interview questions and procedures, artifacts, and

teacher observations.

Fresch’s Survey

Fresch’s (2003) survey (see Appendix A) is comprised of four parts: demographics,

instructional practices, theoretical orientation, and educational issues. The survey includes fill-

in-the-blank, Likert scale items, and open-ended questions. All Likert scale questions are scaled

5 through 1, with 5 being strongly agree and 1 being strongly disagree. The demographic

information has 13 fill-in-the-blank questions on school demographics and teaching experience.

Instructional practices focus on how spelling is currently being taught and has 12 fill-in-the-

blank questions and 27 Likert scale items. The theoretical section has 18 Likert questions and

focuses on teacher beliefs about effective instruction in general and in spelling. Finally,

educational issues has three open-ended questions discussing concerns, grade-level spelling

issues, and additional comments. There are a total of 70 questions.

When creating this survey, Fresch (2003) originally based the theoretical orientation on a

spelling workshop. The survey was founded upon published literature and modeled after other

literacy surveys (e.g., Baumann & Heubach, 1996). Fresch’s spelling survey was piloted (N =

53) on two separate occasions and revisions were completed each time. In a later article, Fresch

(2007) reported, “Cronbach’s alpha for Likert scale items was .85, well above the desired .7

reliability” (p. 307). Upon its completion, the survey was used for Fresch’s 2003 (N = 335) and

2007 (N = 355) studies on American teachers’ beliefs about spelling, as well as McNeill and

Kirk’s (2014) New Zealand study (N = 405).

The instructional practices (section two) helped to give an overview of current spelling

practices within the school. Differences and similarities in teachers’ answers within the same

90

building helped illustrate school or district expectations or ability to implement their own

structure. The theoretical orientation (section 3) clarified underlying teacher beliefs about

effective activities and methodologies. However, initially the individual questions in section

three were a mixture of activities and approaches. To help understand participant beliefs, the

questions were labeled as either an activity or as a specific approach (e.g., traditional,

developmental word study, and incidental) and included in Appendix D. As stated in Chapter

Two, the traditional approach involves activities traditionally found within spelling classrooms

(e.g., writing words multiple times, weekly tests, standardized lists, rote memorization, etc.).

Developmental word study approaches, such as Words their Way, often include word sorts,

individualized lists based on specific levels, and (perhaps) writing journals. An incidental

approach may or may not include direct instruction. If spelling instruction is present, it is in

response to student writing or perceived student need (Weiner, 2004). Therefore, words may

come from student writing, writing journals may be used, and spelling is closely connected to

writing and reading.

The survey was given as a paper copy and then placed into Excel. The Likert scores from

the survey provided instructional and theoretical data. Descriptive data from Section 3

(theoretical beliefs) was analyzed and compared within each building and across buildings to

look for trends. To help further clarify section 3, tables were created in Word so trends between

schools and positions (e.g., principal, literacy expert, and teacher) could be analyzed (see

Appendix E). Open-ended questions were typed in NVivo and coded (as outlined in the data

analysis). The data from section 2 (instructional practices) was used and compared with

classroom observation and answers from the interview. Section three was used to help build and

support themes. The data from this survey helped provide an understanding of the teacher’s self-

91

reported beliefs. Since “each type of data has strengths and weaknesses,” this survey helped to

increase trustworthiness by cross-checking other findings (Patton, 2015, p. 390).

Interviews

Interviews are the primary source of data within qualitative research because they allow

researchers to “understand our fellow human beings” (Fontana & Frey, 1994, p. 361). Likewise,

Perakyla and Ruusuvuori (2011) stated interviews “research areas of reality that would otherwise

remain inaccessible such as people’s subjective experiences and attitudes” (p. 529). Yet,

interviews were not merely chosen because it is what is done in qualitative research (Silverman,

2000). Rather, they helped to give context to the other sources of data.

Piloted interview protocol. The interview questions were piloted with two elementary

education teachers, a literacy expert (e.g., reading specialist), and two principals. The questions

for the teacher interview protocol were piloted with the teachers and literacy expert. The

questions for the principal interview protocol was piloted with the principals. The teachers,

specialist, and principals may or may not be retired, but they had a degree in education from an

accredited institution and four or more years in their role. This amount of experience was chosen

because Delaware’s DOE considers three years to be a beginning teacher. Upon the completion

of the third year, if the mentoring process was completed, educators can receive their five-year

continuing teacher license instead of an initial license. The principals must also have four or

more years of experience in an administrative role. Piloting the questions with experienced

educators helped provide additional insight into the questions and determined if areas were

overlooked or if the questions are coherent. As needed, the questions were revised to add clarity

or ensure cohesion with this study.

92

Interview protocols. The interviews with the participants took place after they

completed Fresch’s (2003) survey. With teachers, the observations occurred after the interview.

The interviews were scheduled to take place in the educator’s office or classroom at a time that

was convenient for them. The principal interview took approximately twenty minutes. The

teacher interviews took approximately thirty minutes. The participants received an e-mail with

the interview questions at least 24 hours before the interview. They were also provided with a

hard copy of the questions to use during the interview. Using the recording, the interview was

transcribed and returned to the participants to be member checked.

The questions for teachers and literacy experts were rooted in triadic reciprocality

(Bandura, 1986). Thus, environmental and behavioral factors (e.g., school climate, national

policies, and state policies, school relationships, leadership, and student discipline) interact with

personal influencers (e.g., content knowledge, self-efficacy, and pedagogical beliefs) to produce

teacher’s instructional practices in spelling. The questions for principals were based on

published research about the influences of and on administrators. The teacher and literacy expert

protocol and the principal protocol may also be found in the Appendices (Appendix R and S).

Teacher personal factors. Education has a human element. Bandura (1986) stated,

“Human nature is characterized by a vast potentiality that can be fashioned by direct and

observational experiences into a variety of forms within biological limits” (p. 21). Consequently,

two siblings may have drastically different personalities or perspectives. Likewise, two teachers

from the same school may have vastly different perceptions of school life. Specific personal

factors highlighted in the interview were previous trainings, prior learning, content knowledge,

self-efficacy, and perceptions about spelling.

93

Previous trainings. One type of knowledge develops during observational learning (i.e.,

learning while observing; Bandura, 1986). The observation may result in lower level learning in

which observers learn a case-specific lesson or higher level learning that promotes the formation

of “generative rules” (Bandura, 1986, p. 51). If spelling instruction is considered a behavior,

then previous modeling will have an effect. Since influencers do not always work

simultaneously together nor always in singularity, both the modeled instruction from school-aged

days and observations during in-service, undergraduate classes, or master’s classes may have

significant effects upon how they teach spelling. Question 1 dealt with personal factors (i.e.,

instructional practices based on observational learning). (Behind each question is SQ, which

means it corresponds with that specific research Sub-Question. The Sub-Questions can be found

in the research questions section in this chapter and in Chapter One).

1. Explain in-service opportunities or literacy classes you have had that discussed

spelling instruction. (SQ: 1)

Prior experiences. Enactive learning (i.e., applying and refining a learned concept) is

another influencer of human behavior (Bandura, 1986). For instance, teacher reflection may

result in improved instruction from year to year. The following questions were based upon

concepts of enactive learning:

2. What was spelling class like when you were in elementary school? (SQ: 1)

3. How has your approach to spelling changed or stayed the same over the years?

(SQ: 1; SQ: 2; SQ: 3)

Content knowledge. Teacher’s content knowledge (or lack thereof) about a subject, such

as spelling, will affect how the subject is taught (Applegate & Applegate, 2004; Binks-Cantrell et

al., 2012). Consequently, studies on spelling often conclude with a recommendation for

94

additional teacher training (e.g., Doyle et al., 2015; Moats, 2014). In addition to Fresch’s (2003)

survey, questions 4-7 helped clarify teacher spelling knowledge.

4. How do you believe spelling is acquired or learned? (SQ:1)

5. What kinds of spelling activities do you consider to be particularly ineffective? Why?

(SQ: 1)

6. What kinds of spelling activities do you consider effective? Why? (SQ:1)

7. In general, how do you believe that information is learned most effectively? (SQ: 1)

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as a “judgement of one’s capability to accomplish a

certain level of performance, whereas an outcome expectation is a judgement of the likely

consequence such behavior will produce” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Self-efficacy affects choices,

efforts, persistence, emotional reactions, and thought patterns (Bandura, 1986). Teachers self-

efficacy has been linked with student achievement, job perseverance, and levels of stress

(Aldridge & Fraser, 2016). Questions 8-10 focused on the teacher’s spelling self-efficacy.

8. When working with students who struggle with spelling, how effective do you believe

spelling instruction will be? Please explain. (SQ: 1; SQ2)

9. How do you motivate students to complete spelling activities when they are

uninterested? (SQ: 1; SQ: 2)

10. How, if at all, do you believe educators can help instill a value for spelling into the

lives of their students? (SQ: 1)

Spelling perceptions. Teacher attitudes will affect the degree to which concepts are or

are not implemented (Coss-Yergian & Krepps, 2010).

11. What two factors do you believe have the greatest influence on spelling instruction in

your classroom? Please explain. (SQ: 1; SQ: 2; SQ: 3)

95

Environmental and behavioral factors. A variety of environmental and behavioral

factors affect teacher instruction. These factors include, but are not limited to the following:

curriculum, state and district policy, peer teacher influences, school climate and culture, student

behavior, teacher-principal expectations, and teacher-principal relationship (James & Pollard,

2011). Questions 12-14 asked about school specific curriculum, lesson plans, and process of

instructional change. Question 15 focused on classroom or student factors. Question 16 asked

about state testing, and Question 17 focused on teaching spelling in a hypothetical environment

without external expectations.

12. What lesson plan format is used for literacy in this school? (SQ: 3)

13. What curriculum do you use for spelling and do you believe it is effective? Why or

why not? (SQ: 1; SQ: 3)

14. If you wanted to change your instructional approach to spelling, how would you go

about it? (SQ: 3)

15. Explain how, if at all, student behavior or knowledge is used when planning spelling

instruction. (SQ: 1, SQ: 2)

16. How, if at all, do you differentiate in spelling for students with special needs,

including students with learning disabilities or gifted students? (SQ: 2)

17. How, if at all, does state testing or state standards affect your instructional practices?

(SQ: 3)

18. Imagine that spelling was its own special, like art, and you became the teacher of that

class. Therefore, spelling is all you taught all day long. What would you do differently

or keep the same in your class and why? (SQ: 1; SQ 2; SQ: 3)

96

Principal and peer effects. Within educational institutions, experienced teachers, who

others see as effective, are often the ones who are considered agents of change and sources for

advice (Anderson & Standerford, 2012). Then, as Bandura (1986) stated, “The extent that

observers achieve good results by adopting modeled solutions, they raise their estimate of the

models’ competence and are even more prone to use their behavior as a guide” (p. 208).

Questions 18-19 focused on who may be potential influencers within their grade level or school.

Questions 20-21 asked about administrative expectations and teacher-principal relationship.

19. How do other teachers in your grade-level or school teach spelling? (SQ: 3)

20. If you had a literacy question specifically pertaining to spelling, who would you ask

and why? (SQ: 3)

21. How does your administration expect spelling to be taught? (SQ: 2; SQ 3)

22. Describe your relationship with your principal and vice-principal. (SQ: 2; SQ 3)

23. Is there anything additional you’d like to share, or you feel I should ask, about this

topic?

Principal questions. Principals have varying levels of effect on instructional practices of

teachers (Meyer & Rowan, 2006). While principals are increasingly expected to become

instructional leaders (Bendikson, Robinson, & Hattie, 2012; du Plessis, 2013), many do not for a

variety of reasons (e.g., lack of time or knowledge; Bendikson et al., 2012). Yet, administration

affects school climate (Gülşen, C., & Gülenay, 2014), student learning (Hattie, 2012; Urick &

Bowers, 2014), teacher instruction (Printy, 2010), and teacher retention (Player, Youngs,

Perrone, & Grogan, 2017). Thus, the following questions was asked to help understand what, if

any, influence district policy and expectations, principal beliefs about spelling, and the

97

principal’s expectations for teachers have upon teacher spelling instruction. All these questions

helped answer the third Sub-Question (SQ: 3).

District policy and expectations: The decisions, expectations, and level of support from

the central office of districts has an effect upon teacher efficacy, student outcomes, and teacher

instruction (Grossman & Thompson, 2004). Questions 1-5 focused on district expectations.

1. In your district and in your school, how are in-service decisions made?

2. How often are you expected to observe teachers?

3. If applicable, what does the district expect to occur during the ELA time block?

4. What do you feel are the top three district expectations of a principal?

5. What do you feel are the top three district expectations of teachers?

Principal expectations and opinions. Research supports that while district policies affect

teacher instruction, principals mediate those policies (Coburn & Russell, 2008). For instance,

teacher observations are mandated by many states, including Delaware. However, teacher

evaluations are neither linked with improved instruction nor student improvement (Woulfin,

Donaldson, & Gonzales, 2016). Woulfin and colleagues (2016) suggested that evaluations are

not effective due to the administration’s lack of time (i.e. limited time for observations),

evaluator skill (i.e., lacking knowledge of effective instruction), and evaluator will (e.g.,

principals may give effective ratings in order to avoid teacher confrontation). Therefore,

depending on the principal, a policy within the same district may have a different effect.

Questions 6-8 focused on the principal’s beliefs about principal-teacher relationships and their

role in teacher instruction.

6. What do you believe is your role with the instructional practices of teachers?

7. What do you believe is the purpose of classroom observations?

98

8. How would you describe your relationship with the teachers?

Principals as instructional leaders. As mentioned in the previous chapter, principals are

increasingly viewed as instructional leaders (du Plessis, 2013; Puzio et al., 2015). Therefore,

questions 9-12 illustrated principal opinions of spelling and literacy instruction.

9. What components are you looking for when you enter literacy classrooms?

10. What, if anything, do you expect to see with spelling instruction?

11. If you had to pick the top two influencers of teacher practice in spelling instruction,

what would they be and why?

12. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing literacy teachers?

Artifacts

Saldana (2016), a leading expert in the field of qualitative coding, stated, “Documents are

social products that must be examined critically because they reflect the interests and

perspectives of their authors” (p. 83). Saldana (2016) noted that when his graduate students

reviewed teacher-prepared handouts, students could often closely profile the teacher’s gender,

education level, and value systems. In this study, the lesson plans and accompanying worksheets

were collected and analyzed. Collecting the plans and assignments helped to determine

underlying beliefs about spelling acquisition and helped illustrate adherence to or divergence

from the curriculum, thus, helping to determine the influence of environmental factors (e.g.,

curriculum). If the lesson plans were written, a picture was taken of them and saved as a

password protected document.

A teacher’s guide and student workbook (if used) were also reviewed. One unit of

spelling was studied to determine the underlying beliefs about spelling acquisition. If spelling

was integrated into English language arts (ELA), one ELA unit was reviewed. As the focus was

99

not student learning, completed student worksheets were not collected.

Observations

The observations were traditional with a “noninterventionism” approach (Adler & Adler,

1994, p. 378). Since data collected from observations have higher chances of researcher bias, a

test/retest format was utilized (Adler & Adler, 1994). While the necessary amount of

observation hours varies according to the study, claims made with less than ten observation

hours are given light consideration (Saldana & Omasta, 2017). Thus, to ensure a sufficient

amount of observation hours per school, each class was observed three times each.

As spelling may varied in time and as the public schools integrated spelling into the ELA

block, the observation periods varied from twenty minutes to two hours. Consequently, there

were approximately 33 hours of observation. This is well above the bare minimum of 10 hours

(Saldana & Omasta, 2018). If the point of saturation had not been reached, further observations

would have continued until saturation was achieved. As Walker (2012) stated, “Data saturation

involves continual sampling within a study until repetition of the data set has occurred and no

new information is being obtained” (p. 37). Saturation allows a depth of information to be

discovered and replication of the study becomes possible (Fusch & Ness, 2015).

Throughout the study, this researcher assumed a non-participant observer role, as

opposed to an active role, in the classroom. An observation protocol (Appendix F) and field

observation log (Appendix J) were utilized. The observation protocol had three sections:

descriptive notes, analytic memos, and reflective notes. Descriptive notes described that which

was visibly evident (e.g., progression of lesson, lesson’s objective, student worksheet questions,

etc.). Analytic memos had short phrases, comments, or questions that came to mind during

observations. Analytic memos will always be tested against data (Bassey, 1999). The reflective

100

notes discussed: (a) this researcher’s personal beliefs, biases, and assumptions, (b) pedagogical

and spelling approaches this researcher believed teachers were utilizing, and (c) connections

drawn between the interview and observation (see Appendix G and H). All questions or areas of

uncertainty were discussed with the teacher during a follow-up session or e-mail.

Data Analysis

As an embedded case study, data from the subunits (i.e., educators) and the main units

(i.e., individual schools) were analyzed. Data (i.e., interview, observations, and surveys) was

analyzed to gain an understanding of spelling instruction (a) individually, (b) within schools, and

(c) across schools. First, the data on each participant was individually analyzed. Since case

descriptions can help illuminate the “appropriate explanation to be identified” (Yin, 2018, p.

172), individual case descriptions were developed by (a) becoming familiar with the individual’s

data and (b) completing the initial codes (described in the section below; Braun & Clark, 2006).

A brief case description was then written describing each educator’s role, instructional or

leadership practices, and beliefs about spelling. Next, Braun and Clark’s (2006) thematic

analysis steps were utilized to determine themes within and across schools. Reports were

compiled for each school and then across schools. This section describes the steps within the

thematic analysis as well as the use.

Thematic Analysis

A thematic analysis method requires researchers to identify, analyze, and report “patterns

within data” (Braun & Clark, 2006, p. 79). Thematic analyses are widely used but have been

accused of being “poorly demarcated and rarely acknowledged” (Braun & Clark, 2006, p. 77).

Yet, when clearly articulated, a thematic analysis can increase a study’s trustworthiness and

dependability (Braun & Clark, 2006; Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017). Thematic

101

analysis was completed for each school. The six steps of data analysis, as suggested by Braun

and Clarke (2006), are described below.

(1) Become familiar with data. All qualitative data was transcribed and placed into the

qualitative data analysis software NVivo to be coded. NVivo could not identify or produce

themes, but it could become a storing house for data (Yin, 2018). To become deeply familiar

with data from the interview and increase transcription accuracy, the second coder and this

researcher transcribed the interviews (Saldaña & Omasta, 2017). The observations, with lesson

plan notes and analytic memos, were saved in NVivo.

Results from Fresch’s (2003) survey were placed in Excel and charts from section three

(about teacher beliefs) were inserted into Word (see Appendix E). Next, the individual surveys

were compared with interviews and observational data and artifacts. As self-reported

methodological surveys are susceptible to inaccuracies (Bate, 2010; Gill et al., 2004; Phillips,

2010; Karimi & Dehghani, 2016), the triangulation of data provided support or revealed possible

discrepancies in answers.

(2) Initial codes. Several codes were created before data was collected and were based

on previous literature (Stake, 1995). As Saldana (2016) stated, having several literature-based

codes beforehand helps “to harmonize your study’s conceptual framework or paradigm” and

enables “an analysis that directly answers your research questions” (p. 96). The pre-determined

codes were as follows: state testing, teacher content knowledge, prior training, self-efficacy,

administration, teacher pedagogy, school policy, curriculum, school resources, peer

relationships, and student discipline. As information was recorded and analyzed, other codes

were created (Creswell, 2013). If a pre-determined code did not have any supporting statements

within the data, it was deleted.

102

(3) Searching for themes. The codes were grouped and used to create themes (Braun &

Clark, 2006). Thus, in keeping with Braun and Clark’s (2006) suggestion to place each code into

theme-piles, NVivo was used to create theme piles. The query features in NVivo allowed each

code to be counted, compared, and combined to create themes until each theme could be clearly

supported (see Appendices K and L).

(4) Reviewing themes. During this stage, all data was reviewed to determine if the data

supported the themes (Braun & Clark, 2006). If the themes were problematic, Braun and Clark’s

(2006) advice was followed to “consider whether the theme itself is problematic, or whether

some of the data extracts within it simply do not fit there” (p. 91). Hence, if needed, “ill-fitting”

themes were either reworked or recreated. Then, once again all data was reread to ensure coding

properly reflected the data and not researcher bias.

(5) Defining and naming themes. Themes were further defined and refined (Braun &

Clark, 2006). The parameters of each theme were clearly defined and supported.

(6) Producing the report. The final step of the analysis was to write the report. A

variety of quotes was used to support themes from each school and thematic charts were turned

from NVivo into thematic maps. The report described and used data to defend explanations

(Braun & Clark, 2006).

Cross Case Analysis Between Schools

After each school was thematically analyzed, NVivo’s crosstab analysis feature was used

to complete a cross case analysis between all cases. All participants were compared to determine

and support themes. A report was created to discuss the major themes from all participants.

The descriptive data from Section 3 of Fresch’s (2003) survey was placed in Word and

used to support or refute themes within schools and across schools. Specifically, the mean,

103

mode, and range were used to determine underlying beliefs about spelling instruction (see

Appendix E). For example, if three out of four teachers in a school believed writing a word

several times was an effective spelling practice, a traditional view of spelling acquisition was

supported. This belief, however, may or may not influence teacher practice. Therefore, it helped

to clarify the alignment between teacher belief and teacher practice.

Trustworthiness

Unlike quantitative studies, which have numbers to help establish validity and reliability,

qualitative studies depend on a researcher who may interpret data in manners that are highly

subjective and opinion-based (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Unfortunately, if rigor is detached from

the qualitative process, then participants or programs may become misrepresented or

misunderstood (Stake, 1995). Therefore, to increase the trustworthiness of this study, credibility,

dependability, confirmability, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was applied to ensure

the data was “talking” instead of researcher bias.

Credibility

Internal validation is to the quantitative researcher, what credibility is to the qualitative

researcher (Creswell, 2013). To increase this study’s credibility, data was triangulated (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995). Data triangulation compares and cross-references data from

multiple sources to ensure correct raw and interpreted data (Stake, 1994). Hence, Fresch’s

(2003) survey was compared with data from the classroom observations, lesson plans, and

interviews. Also, throughout the study, member checks were utilized to confirm correct

interpretations of spoken and written statements in observations and interviews. To help ensure

“consistency and interpretations” a second coder also coded the data (Saldana & Omasta, 2018,

104

p. 6). Having two coders increased credibility as it is a type of inter-coder agreement (Saldana

& Omasta, 2018).

Dependability and Confirmability

As fiscal auditors confirm financial details, audit trails and reflexive journaling help

increase the dependability and confirmability of qualitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In

this study, Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) suggestions for the audit trail were included. Therefore,

examples of the following are included in the Appendices: raw data (Appendices E, G, H, and I),

data reduction and analysis products (Appendices M, N, and O), synthesis products (Appendix

D), process notes (Appendix O), materials relating to intentions and dispositions (Appendices Q

– Z), and instrument information (Appendix A; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Reflexive journaling

was recorded beside data in NVivo (Appendix N).

Transferability

Due to the limited number of participants and the boundedness of case studies, external

validity was not applicable. Yet, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985), a qualitative researcher

“cannot specify external validity of an inquiry; he or she can provide only the thick descriptions

necessary to enable someone interested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whether

transfer can be contemplated as a possibility” (p. 316). Therefore, this study provided rich, thick

descriptions of the cases, including the main and sub-units of analysis. Using quotes,

observations, and survey data, detailed explanations were developed to help readers have deep

understanding of the connections, themes, and participants (Creswell, 2013). Furthermore,

maximum variation sought out similar and unique themes amidst the diverse settings.

Ethical Considerations

105

It is this researcher’s job to ensure that this study is conducted ethically. After all, as

Stake (1994) stated, “Qualitative researchers are guests in the private spaces of the world. Their

manners should be good and their code of ethics strict” (p. 244). Therefore, informed consent

from the participants was obtained. The informed consent forms stated the participants may

withdraw at any time and they outlined the predicted amount of time the study would take (see

Appendices T, U, and V). The consent form also informed participants beforehand that the

study’s findings would be published (Bassey, 1999). Consent was obtained from the school

district and principals before teachers or literacy experts were contacted.

So the educators knew how they are being portrayed, they received copies of their

interview transcriptions, and information was member checked (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

There is no deception in the study and member checks helped to ensure accuracy (Christians,

2011). To aid in confidentiality, sites and participants were given pseudonymous and no

identifying markers were mentioned (Creswell, 2013). Due to the small sample size,

observational and interview data were kept confidential from others in the same school. All data

was kept secure. Data on computers was password protected and all hard copies were locked in

a filing cabinet. After three years, all hard copies will be shredded, and files will be deleted.

Identifying participant information was not stored on the computer. Rather, it was on a hard

copy and stored in a separate locked filing cabinet that did not have data from this study.

Summary

This multiple case study was developed to understand how internal and external factors

influence the spelling instruction of third and fourth grade teachers. Based on Bandura’s (1986)

social cognitive theory, three sub-questions were created that focused on the possible influencers

(i.e., environmental, personal, and classroom factors). The study was conducted in three

106

elementary schools (i.e., main units of study) in Delaware with 16 participants (i.e., embedded

units of study). The participants included principals, literacy experts, and third and fourth grade

teachers. Data sources included Fresch’s (2003) survey, interviews, observations, and lesson

plans. The data was coded, categorized, and analyzed using a Braun and Clark’s (2006) thematic

analysis process and a cross-case analysis within NVivo. Trustworthiness was promoted by data

triangulation, researcher memoing, member checking, development of an audit trail, inclusion of

a second coder, and inclusion of deep, rich descriptions.

107

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Overview

The purpose of this multiple case study was to explain how internal and external factors

shape the instructional spelling practices of third and fourth grade educators in Delaware. In this

chapter, the participants and findings of the data analysis are discussed. The findings were

derived from the analysis and triangulation of data from qualitative and quantitative information,

including participant interviews, Fresch’s (2003) survey, and classroom observations. As an

embedded case study, each participant is first grouped according to the site and both the site

characteristics and the participants’ individual perspectives and experiences (i.e., case

descriptions) are examined. Next, themes within schools are discussed, and the cross-case

analysis results are presented with two thematic models. One thematic model is for the public

schools and one is for the private school. Then, the research questions are answered. Finally, the

chapter concludes with a summary.

Participants

The participants in this study were all licensed educators (N = 16) in the state of

Delaware. The educators have various educational degrees ranging from a Bachelor of Science

to Doctoral degree in education. There were three categories of educators, third and fourth grade

teachers (n = 10), principals (n = 3), and literacy experts (n = 3). They worked in three schools

in Delaware. The two sights were public elementary schools, and one was a private school.

Pseudonyms were used for all study participants and sites to ensure confidentiality. In

order to accurately portray the participants’ perspectives, quotes are verbatim and may include

grammatical errors or be italicized to represent verbal emphasis. Participant introductions begin

with a description of the school and a detailed explanation of the school’s curriculum and

108

expectations for spelling or, if spelling was not explicitly taught, English language arts (ELA)

instruction. Due to the number of participants and reports, to help readers track the participants

throughout the results section, each participant was given a code with the first initial of their

school (i.e., W for Washington, L for Lincoln, and J for Jackson), a second letter for their role

(i.e., P for principal, LE for literacy expert, and T for teacher). Additionally, teachers have a

third number to represent the grade they taught. Since there are two teachers in each grade in the

public schools, public school teachers have an L (lead) or N (non-lead) after their grade. The

codes are used periodically throughout Chapter Four and Chapter Five.

The educators within each school are discussed in the following order: principal, literacy

expert, third grade teachers, and fourth grade teachers. Data from principals and literacy experts

are discussed according to (a) individual demographic and experience information, (b) influences

and approaches to spelling instruction as evidenced in their interviews, and (c) beliefs as

evidenced in Fresch’s (2003) spelling survey. The same format is used for teachers; however, a

description of classroom observations is included with their interview information.

Washington Elementary School

Washington Elementary School is a K-5 public school in Delaware. Between 70-80% of

their teachers hold a master’s degree and 25-30% of their student body comes from a low socio-

economic level. Washington currently uses the American Reading Company curriculum for

English Language Arts. The American Reading Company (ARC) does not include direct

spelling instruction in the curriculum’s manual. Rather, it utilizes an incidental approach, which

posits students will learn to spell as they engage in reading and writing. If students need spelling

instruction, ARC supports teachers using their knowledge and training to meet the students’

needs.

109

An integral part of ARC includes assigning students Power Goals (i.e., goals based on

students’ current level of reading performance) as determined by a curriculum assessment and

teacher observations. Power Goals and student progress are tracked on SchoolPace software.

Therefore, teachers assess students weekly and provide the students with Power Goals. Goals

may range from phonics or sight words to reading a chapter book. Sixty to ninety minutes daily

is dedicated to a reading and writing lesson. An additional thirty minutes is dedicated to

sustained silent reading (SSR). During SSR, the teacher works with and assesses students

individually or in small groups.

The lessons within the teacher’s manual are general (e.g., they state basic concepts to be

taught and several questions students should answer). The required daily lesson plans for

teachers (as expected by administration) included writing the essential question and an

abbreviated outline for the lesson. Some teachers wrote their lesson plans on an online plan

book website, and others wrote them in a traditional teacher’s planning book.

Michelle (WP). Michelle was the principal of Washington Elementary and had been an

educator for twenty-one years. Her undergraduate degree was in reading and elementary

education, and her master’s degree was in elementary and special education. She had attended

four trainings focused on the American Reading Company curriculum per year. As an

administrator, she believed the top expectation of the district office for her and the teachers was

“to be an instructional leader.” In her role as an instructional leader, Michelle tried to ensure the

teachers “have everything they need.”

When walking into ELA classroom, Michelle expected to see student engagement and

“productive struggle.” Within the specific area of spelling, Michelle adhered to the incidental

approach to spelling. Therefore, on Fresch’s (2003) survey, she rated that spelling instruction

110

was never taught with a weekly list and was not taught often during class or small-group mini-

lessons. Rather, she identified that spelling was always taught in the younger grades (first and

second) during the Morning Message via attention given to words. The Morning Message was

when the teacher greeted the students but also looked carefully at words written on the board,

explicitly discussing patterns or sounds of the various words.

During the interview, Michelle explained that during first grade, the words grow in

complexity, and the students start to use the words in their writing. In second grade, attention to

words is given during whole group reading, but spelling also starts to be discussed during

individual conferences. In third grade, a “kind of transition happens” where spelling instruction

“moves from oral and the group work and the reading part of it to the writing part of it.” Thus,

the students “start noticing on their own” as the teachers help students “edit their writing.”

Consequently, students will “see the patterns that way.”

This approach to teaching spelling was evident within her survey results. Any type of

traditional approach question was ranked with a 1 (strongly disagree). For instance, Michelle

strongly disagreed that “formal spelling instruction is needed to ensure adequate development of

skills.” Whereas, questions dealing with incidental spelling approaches or approaches based on

word patterns were ranked with a 5 (strongly agree). For example, she gave a 5 to “Personal

journals are an effective way for students to relate writing to spelling.”

Sarah (WLE). Sarah was the reading specialist at Washington Elementary for thirteen

years. During the 2019-2020 school year, however, Sarah decided to move back into the

classroom and teach fifth grade. Her undergraduate degree was in elementary education with a

minor in reading. Her master’s degree was in curriculum development and administration.

111

Throughout the interview, Sarah discussed a variety of spelling instructional strategies

she used in her classroom and frequently mentioned a need for content to be meaningful to

students. Sarah taught spelling through word work activities (e.g., word sorts and explicit word

attention to spelling patterns, Greek and Latin roots, prefixes, and suffixes).

When students wrote, she wanted them to first focus on ideas. After the writing pieces

were complete, she had the students circle words that may have looked a “bit funny.” She stated:

That alerts me, even if they spelled it right, that they weren’t a hundred percent sure if

they spelled that right, or maybe using the correct tense. So . . . if I see a lot of circles,

okay, I need to then make an instructional decision of what’s the one best spelling choice

for them.

Sarah’s approach to instruction, whether spelling or otherwise, was based on student

engagement and “sense of inquiry.” In discussing how to motivate students to complete spelling

activities, she stated, “They have to know the need. They have to know the relevance.”

Furthermore, “They’ve got to kind of put that into practice and see, take pride in what they’re

able to produce.” To help instill an importance of spelling, the students may have to read

something with incorrect spelling. For instance:

Let’s say . . . I put a piece of writing where it said, ‘If you could understand all this’ but

all the words are spelled wrong; and what the message actually was ‘No homework for

the rest of the year,’ but they couldn’t actually read it . . . [they need to understand] that

what they’re putting on paper actually has to be read by somebody else.

Sarah’s answers on Fresch’s (2003) assessment supported her answers during the

interview. She strongly disagreed with traditional based spelling practices, such as, “Spelling

textbooks are efficient tools for helping students develop spelling skills.” Conversely, like

112

Michelle, questions dealing with embedded spelling or word activities were rated with a 5

(highly agree). Thus, questions such as, “Spelling is best taught when integrated with writing,”

received a 5.

Samantha (WT3L). Samantha earned her undergraduate degree in elementary education,

her master’s degree in instruction, and her doctoral degree in educational leadership. She had

taught in various elementary grades a total of eight years. She was the third grade lead teacher at

Washington. During the observations, Samantha followed the basic outline provided in the

teacher’s guide from ARC and included the information from her planning book into her

Smartboard presentation with her class. During the observations, she was beginning a unit

focused on weather phenomena. There was a whole group portion with a mini-lesson (e.g., main

ideas and details). Next, the students started their research into the specific storm of their

choosing.

During the afternoon silent sustained reading time, Samantha worked with small groups

and individuals at the back table. With several struggling readers, Samantha completed activities

dealing with open and closed syllables, prefixes, and suffixes. In a conversation between classes,

Samantha stated she felt she needed to supplement ARC for her struggling readers. Therefore,

she created her small group lessons based on previous training and knowledge and sometimes

used resources found on Teachers Pay Teachers to teach the needed skills.

Samantha upheld that “learning the patterns is helpful” when developing students’ ability

to spell. Furthermore, she believed students needed to make connections to “things they have

experience with or previous knowledge that they had,” and they should have “fun and hands on,

engaging, opportunities for them to kind of do rather than listening.” Previously, Samantha

taught for five years at Jackson Elementary School before working for Washington Elementary

113

School. Some of the practices she used at Jackson Elementary School were evident within her

small group reading groups. For instance, she learned concepts such as open and closed syllables

at Jackson and applied it to her small groups at Washington.

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Samantha revealed a variety of beliefs about spelling. The

only statement she strongly disagreed with was, “Spelling textbooks are efficient tools for

helping students develop spelling skills.” Other traditional beliefs (e.g., writing the word several

times as an effective method) were ranked with 3s (neutral). The statements that received her

highest ratings (4: Agree) dealt with activities within the incidental approach (e.g., spelling being

taught through writing), the developmental word study approach (e.g., word sorts), and

pedagogical activities (e.g., cooperative groups).

Jasmine (WT3N). Jasmine was the third grade non-lead teacher at Washington. Her

undergraduate degree was in elementary and special education, and she had started taking classes

for a master’s degree in TESOL, special education, and bilingual education. The 2019-2020

school year was her second year of teaching.

During the three observed lessons, Jasmine began with the students on the carpet as she

read a chapter book aloud to them. After the allotted read aloud time, the students returned to

their seats to work on an assignment independently (e.g., a graphic organizer about rising action).

The graphic organizer was from the ARC teacher guide. Next, the students had a short mini-

lesson dealing with prefixes and suffixes. Specifically, three words were written on the board

and the meanings of root words and prefixes were discussed. Then they completed a worksheet

where they read a paragraph, answered questions, and circled words with the specified prefixes.

In the afternoon, during SSR, Jasmine pulled students back one at a time to assess them

individually and put their scores into SchoolPace.

114

Jasmine integrated the mini-lesson on prefixes, suffixes, and word work because, as she

stated, “I felt like I fell short last year; and so I wanted to make sure that they had a stronger

handle on it this year. Because prefixes and suffixes, they need to know that in fourth” grade.

Her previous experience helped her to supplement her instruction to help prepare students for the

following year.

Aside from occasionally completing morphological word work and correcting spelling

during the editing process, Jasmine conveyed she did not teach spelling. Yet, when asked about

ineffective spelling instruction, she laughingly stated, “Ineffective spelling activities? Probably

not teaching spelling.” Consequently, when asked if all students can learn to be good spellers,

Jasmine stated, “If taught, yes.” As we discussed the effectiveness of her approach to spelling

for struggling students, she shook her head and answered, “It is not. If you couldn’t spell when

you got here...” She ended the comment with a shrug.

Her answers on Fresch’s (2003) survey revealed a mixture of beliefs. Certain questions

revealed some divergence of belief from an incidental spelling approach. For instance, Jasmine

strongly disagreed that “students should self-select some of their own words to study” and agreed

(4) spelling textbooks were beneficial. However, in keeping with the incidental approach, she

also agreed with the statement, “Spelling is best when integrated with writing.”

Ashley (WT4L). Ashley was the fourth grade lead teacher and had been teaching for five

years. Her undergraduate degree was in elementary education and her master’s degree was in

educational technology leadership. During each of the three lessons observed, Ashley began the

lesson with a brief grammar language review warm-up. The students first completed it

independently. Then students discussed the answers. The activity covered homophones,

115

spelling of tricky words (e.g., similar), present and past tense, proper nouns, and various other

grammar issues.

During one of the observations, students had to use two sources to write a paragraph

about avalanches. The students were paired and wrote the paragraph together. Then all the

students returned to the carpet in the front to review student-written paragraphs about avalanches

(student work was taken from another class). Students often discussed misspelled words and

grammar errors. They also critiqued ideas and looked for strengths and weaknesses within the

paragraphs.

During the interview, Ashley stated that answering some of the questions for the

interview were difficult “because we don’t do a whole lot of spelling.” When possible, spelling

instruction was embedded into the editing process. Ashley put dots on lines of work to alert the

students of the number of words misspelled in a line. Thus, two dots meant two words were

misspelled. As needed, Ashley shared she may complete a mini-lesson on a specific spelling

skill. For instance, with her English learners, she may complete a small group lesson reinforcing

the differences between the Spanish and English alphabets (e.g., the /y/ and /j/ sounds).

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Ashley gave a 4 (agree) to six statements dealing with the

incidental approach (e.g., “spelling words should come from students’ own writing.”). Most of

the other statements were rated with a 3 (neutral); however, she disagreed that invented spellings

reflected developmental stages (developmental stage approach) and disagreed that a single

spelling list was effective for the entire class (traditional approach).

Dawn (WT4N). Dawn was the fourth grade non-lead teacher at Washington

Elementary. She had been a fourth grade teacher for ten years. Her undergraduate degree was in

elementary and special education and her master’s degree was in educational leadership. While

116

the three lessons observed in Dawn’s classroom were quite diverse, there was an obvious pattern

to them. They often began with a mini-lesson and then the mini-lesson was applied. For

instance, during the first observation, the students discussed figurative language. Then they

looked in their own writing to determine where figurative language could be added. Finally,

they read a story aloud and looked for ways figurative language was used. During writing times,

Dawn wanted students to first write their ideas before worrying about correct spelling. For

instance, when one student said, “I don’t know if I spelled this word correctly,” Dawn replied,

“That’s okay.” The student then continued writing.

To help students notice when words are misspelled, similar to Ashley, Dawn put “a little

dot next to their line; and that signals to them how many misspelled words are on the line.”

Since the dots were usually marked on papers sent home, students were not required to fix them.

Rather, due to limited classroom time, Dawn asked parents to sit with their student and look for

the mistakes.

Dawn discussed the transition three years ago from Sitton spelling to the incidental

approach. With the implementation of the American Reading Company, spelling as a grade was

discontinued. Even though spelling was not taken for a grade, Dawn had initially chosen several

words to create a weekly “spelling” list. The words were often chosen based on mistakes within

student writing and were not tested at the end of the week. However, parents complained about

their children receiving spelling words, and the administration talked with Dawn about

discontinuing the list. Therefore, at the end of the interview, Dawn commented, “I think it’s

important, kind of seeing if maybe if we should . . . kind of supplement a real program into our

instruction; or if we should still go on it as an individual basis . . . [what is] best practice?”

117

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Dawn agreed or strongly agreed with fourteen of eighteen

questions about how spelling is effectively learned. She agreed with components of the

developmental, the traditional, and the incidental approaches. She also (pedagogically) believed

students learned best with hands-on activities and cooperative groups. The only belief Dawn

ranked with a 1 or 2 dealt with a common spelling list being effective. Therefore, Dawn’s

spelling beliefs aligned with a variety of instructional approaches to spelling.

Jackson Elementary School

Jackson is a third through fifth grade public school in Delaware. After using the Wonders

curriculum for five years, they adopted and implemented Bookworms during the 2019-2020

school year. Bookworms integrates spelling and word work into a forty-five minute daily block.

Between 45-50% of the teachers hold a master’s degree, and 45-50% of student population

comes from a low socio-economic background.

The Bookworms teacher guide has detailed lesson plans. Many of the lessons have online

Smartboard lessons to accompany the daily plans. In Jackson Elementary, Smartboard

presentations are an expected component of instruction. If Smartboard presentations are not

available online, teachers create and often share their presentations with one another. A unique

aspect of Bookworms is in addition to providing training at the beginning of the year, there are

reading specialists with Bookworms who work as literacy coaches. Thus, they may model

lessons for teachers or if the reading specialist at Jackson cannot answer the teacher’s literacy

questions, then the teacher or the literacy expert can e-mail the Bookworms’ reading specialists.

In third and fourth grade, there are typically six spelling words students need to learn per

week. The words are usually found at least once in the shared reading text. The curriculum

integrates the six syllable types into spelling lessons. At the end of each week, the students must

118

spell the word and use three of the words in sentences. Since this was a new program, the

students were initially graded on the spelling of each syllable. As the year progressed, students

were expected to spell the entire word.

Matthew (JP). Mathew was the vice-principal of Jackson Elementary. He had his

bachelor’s degree in elementary education and his master’s degree in school leadership. He

worked as an elementary education teacher for five years, and 2019-2020 was his first school

year as a school administrator. During the 2018-2019 school year, he was one of the teachers

asked to pilot Bookworms. Therefore, his previous spelling training included the spelling and

word work training provided by the Bookworms author and team.

When discussing spelling instruction within the school, Matthew explained he expected

the teachers to follow the curriculum “with fidelity.” He further clarified,

Typically, the students are given two spelling words a day, and the teachers then utilize

that time to explain the word, use it in a sentence, and then break it apart by syllable; and

not only is the teacher doing that, but the students are writing that in their journal as well.

Mathew believed his role was to be a support and an instructional coach to teachers. He stated,

“I feel like you’re a coach first and a principal second.” Therefore, he didn’t want teachers “to

feel intimidated when I come into the classroom or feel as though I’m trying to find something

wrong in their instruction.” As an administrator, however, he also wanted to ensure teachers “are

following the curriculum to fidelity, delivering effective instruction.”

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Matthew agreed (4) or strongly agreed (5) with fourteen of

the eighteen statements. The remaining four statements were given neutral (3) ratings and dealt

with the effectiveness of grouping students according to developmental stages, using spelling

words from student writing, integrating spelling into writing, and creating sayings to teach

119

special sounds. Therefore, he did not adhere to solely one specific approach, but agreed with

pieces from a variety of approaches (i.e., incidental, traditional, and developmental) and

activities (e.g., cooperative groups and use of manipulatives).

Jessica (JLE). Jessica had been an educator for twenty-five years and was the

elementary education district reading specialist for fourteen years. Jessica led the professional

learning community (PLC) meetings, tracked students’ test scores, helped provide in-service

training, and observed and provided feedback to teachers. She was a proponent for Bookworms

and was on the team to pilot it within the school. Jessica was interviewed at the end of the 2018-

2019 school year, as the school was beginning to transition from Wonders to Bookworms.

When discussing the spelling instruction within classrooms while completing Wonders,

she reflected:

If they [teachers] felt that that was important because through Wonders it truly was not on

the forefront. So, it was more of, if the teachers felt that was something that needed to be

incorporated, they kind of did, and other people did not do as much with it. So, it was

more not grade-level just teacher wise.

With the implementation of Bookworms, however, spelling instruction transitioned from optional

to an expected component of the classroom.

As evidenced by Bookworms being one of the top ten words mentioned during the

interview, Jessica believed deeply in the effectiveness of the program. Her personal philosophy

of teaching spelling was “meaningful, hands on; where they are learning, learning that rule or

that closed syllable, open syllable, those types of things rather than just memorization.” With the

change to Bookworms, spelling once again became an expected component of the classroom and

was approached with a word work mentality aligning more closely with Jessica’s beliefs.

120

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Jessica strongly agreed that the following were effective

means for teaching spelling: cooperative groups, word sorts, spelling-writing connections, formal

spelling instruction, and personal journals. Conversely, she strongly believed the following were

ineffective: assigning a grade-level list for all students to learn, giving a common word list,

requiring students to write the spelling words several times, and telling them to sound out words

when they requested the spelling. Hence, Jessica agreed with activities concurrent with

developmental stage and incidental approaches, but not with the approaches themselves. For

instance, like the incidental approach, she wanted to connect spelling to reading, but unlike the

approach, she believed direct instruction was necessary. She also believed the traditional

approach to spelling was ineffective. Yet, as evidenced in the interview, she believed the formal

spelling lists of Bookworms were effective because they included syllable types, spelling rules,

and vocabulary development.

Mary (JT3L). Mary was the third grade lead teacher at Jackson Elementary School. At

the time of the study, she currently taught the gifted and talented class and had been an educator

for five years. During the observations, Mary administered a spelling test, and the following

days the students completed writing pieces about the government. Since the spelling words were

based on the government (e.g., president, representative, etc.), the writing required the spelling

words to be utilized. Mary’s lessons closely aligned with the curriculum.

During the interview, Mary discussed the several differences between Wonders and

Bookworms. Specifically, when completing Wonders during small group instruction, she stated:

We had kind of pieced it together; and we had to do phonics because several, especially

being in the special education room last year, several of my kids didn’t have any phonics

skill set—it was painful. So, it was similar in the sense that it was supposed to be [like

121

Bookworms] . . . but because it was like, ‘Oh here we pulled this from the internet, we

know it worked for other schools, let’s try to implement it halfway through the year.’ It

wasn’t effective.

With the training she had received from Bookworms, Mary’s spelling ability increased, and she

was also able to pass the information onto her students. “I know my weaknesses now as an

adult; where as a kid, I was like, ‘Why can’t I spell?’ But now that I am learning the patterns, I

can see it in them.” Then as she teaches the students, “They’re like ‘Oh! Okay!”’

Mary filled out Fresch’s (2003) survey two times. She initially completed it before the

implementation and training for Bookworms. Then she completed it again three months after she

started using the curriculum. Some of her answers stayed the same and some changed. Both

times she ranked activities associated with the developmental word study highly (e.g., word

sorting, individualization due to developmental stage, etc.). Additionally, she consistently

believed in the effectiveness of a single word list, formal instruction, and telling students to

sound out words (correcting them as needed).

The rest of the changes did not show a preference for the traditional or incidental

approaches. Rather, it was a combination of changed beliefs. For instance, before Bookworms,

she gave a three (neutral) to a statement about the effectiveness of writing a word several times

(i.e., traditional approach), but after Bookworms, she strongly agreed with writing words several

times to help with spelling. Conversely, she initially strongly agreed with another traditional

activity, using spelling workbooks, but then changed it to neutral the second time. Therefore,

there was no theme of change between the first and second time, but an overall alignment with

the following: (a) explicit spelling instruction according to patterns (she wrote a note about the

importance of teaching patterns), (b) developmental word study spelling activities, and (c)

122

aspects of the traditional approach and aspects of the incidental approach that may be more fluid

as opposed to an unwavering belief.

Kayla (JT3N). Kayla was the non-lead third grade teacher. She had been teaching for

twelve years. Her undergraduate degree was in special and elementary education. She was

currently pursuing her master’s degree in counseling.

Two of the lessons observed included introductions to four different spelling words (two

each day). The words were split into syllables on the board. As the students said the words, they

put their hand under their chins to notice the difference between closed and open syllables. Then

Kayla discussed the types of syllables within the words. As the lesson transitioned to center

time, the independent work consisted of students creating super sentences (i.e., sentences use the

spelling word and answers who, what, when, where, and why) with the words discussed that day.

Students who need additional reading support also met with her in a small group and completed

remedial decoding activities (as provided by the Bookworms curriculum).

Throughout the interview, Kayla frequently discussed the effectiveness of Bookworms

and how her content knowledge has grown as a result of the program.

After teaching this curriculum, even in just this short amount of time, I do pay attention

more to syllable types and such or like breaking the words into chunks than I ever

thought about before. Even as a first-time teacher, coming in, I didn’t even know that.

This statement coincided with Kayla’s discussion on effective instruction, to which she replied

that the most effective spelling instruction included “breaking the word into the syllable type.”

When asked about ineffective instruction, Kayla discussed a variety of more traditional activities

(e.g., having students write the word three times for homework, rainbow words, etc.); however,

while she believed they were not as beneficial as the syllable instruction, they “are all effective.”

123

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Kayla agreed and disagreed with a variety of approaches and

activities, with a consistent alignment with the developmental word study approach, a general

disagreement with traditional activities, and varied beliefs about the incidental approach.

Therefore, she strongly agreed (5) or agreed (4) with all questions dealing with developmental

stages (e.g., grouping according to developmental stage). She also strongly agreed with the use

of cooperative groups and integrating writing into reading. She agreed (4) “students should self-

select some of their own words” but she disagreed (2) spelling words should come from student

writing (incidental instruction). She also disagreed (2) with a variety of traditional activities

(e.g., assigning a spelling standard with words all students had to master, usage of spelling

textbooks, and the necessity of formal spelling instruction). However, as she discussed during

the interview, she believed most spelling activities (even traditional ones) were “beneficial,” but

the difference was the degree of effectiveness.

Joanna (JT4L). Joanna was the fourth grade lead teacher at Jackson Elementary and had

her undergraduate degree in elementary and special education. She had been a teacher for fifteen

years. Joanna and Andrew were observed the same week, and their lessons were very similar.

Spelling words were broken into syllables; seatwork included super sentences, and the spelling

test required students to choose three spelling words for super sentences. On one of the days,

however, was a scheduled make-up day where teachers could choose the activities. On that day,

Joanna had her students play a version of a spelling bee using their spelling words.

Throughout the interview, Joanna frequently discussed the importance of having students

make connection within the learning process. She tried to help all students learn the spelling

words by “using humor and the connections that they have to certain words and making the

words relatable to them. It keeps them engaged, and when they’re engaged they’re going to learn

124

more.” Therefore, while teaching spelling, she didn’t utilize rote memorization. Rather, Joanna

affirmed,

I never like to be like, ‘Okay this is the word and this is how it’s spelled.’ I put the word

up there and have the kids kind of try to tackle the word. Like, ‘Do you see anything that

looks familiar? Do you see . . . in the beginning of the word, in the end of the word?’

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, the lowest rating was a three (neutral), which Joanna gave to

eleven of the eighteen beliefs. Therefore, she did not disagree (2) or strongly disagree (1) with

any statement, suggesting she may not have strong beliefs about ineffective spelling practices

from any approach suggested on the survey. Conversely, she strongly agreed (5) that the

following were effective: cooperative learning, word work activities (e.g., sorting), formal

spelling instruction, and manipulatives. The three statements which she gave a four (agree) dealt

with either developmental word study approach (e.g., grouping students according to

developmental abilities) or using writing as a basis for spelling instruction.

Andrew (JT4N). Andrew was the fourth grade non-lead teacher at Jackson Elementary

School. He had been an educator for twenty-one years and had his bachelor’s degree in

elementary education. His lessons closely aligned with the Bookworms curriculum. During the

spelling lessons, he discussed two spelling words. The words were split into syllables on the

Smartboard, and the students discussed the spelling as well as the meanings of the words.

Seatwork included students using the spelling words to create super sentences.

In the early 2000s, Andrew attended trainings given by the author of Bookworms. These

trainings, along with his more recent Bookworms training, had greatly influenced his spelling

instruction. When the school previously used Wonders, spelling was not an expected

component. However, during small group time, akin to the Bookworms approach, “when we did

125

group rotation, especially in my lower groups, we would look at how to break words down.”

Andrew believed Bookworms was effective; therefore, even if given unlimited freedom and time,

Andrew would just include more word work with words and increase the number of super

sentences because, “It’s effective stuff.”

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Andrew strongly agreed that writing journals can help

reinforce spelling skills, spelling should be integrated with writing, and word sorts were

beneficial; however, most statements dealing with the incidental or the developmental word

study approach received a 2 (disagree) or 3 (neutral). Overall, he strongly agreed with

statements that aligned with the Bookworms curriculum. Therefore, he believed the following

are effective activities when teaching spelling: a common list for the entire class, grade-level

spelling standards, formal spelling instruction, and teacher-led (opposed to student-led) spelling

assessments.

Lincoln Preparatory School

Lincoln Preparatory School is a private K-12 school in Delaware. At the time of the

study, there was one class per grade. Unlike the public schools, Lincoln Preparatory School did

not receive funds from the Department of Education. Therefore, they did not need to participate

in state testing and were allowed to choose which set of standards they wished to follow. At the

time of the study, the administrators asked teachers to adhere to Virginia State Standards. To

ensure students were academically advancing, the students would take Terra Nova testing in the

spring. Additionally, if students had difficulty with reading or spelling, both DIBELS and the

Developmental Spelling Assessment would be administered to determine if remediation was

necessary. Lincoln Preparatory School was in the process of becoming accredited with the

Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). Consequently, educators were beginning

126

to work on scope and sequence maps to ensure curriculum and lessons aligned with standards

and included faith-based components.

In the elementary grades, spelling was a separate subject and was a grade on the report

card. Each week, the students had a spelling test. During the 2019-2020 school year, the second

and third grade teachers talked with administration and changed the spelling curriculum from

ACSI Spelling to an Orton-Gillingham inspired curriculum from Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT).

Therefore, spelling was grouped according to special sounds, and quizzes included make-believe

words based on the focused sounds of the week. As the curriculum was not available for fourth

grade, the fourth grade teacher decided to keep ACSI Spelling.

Katie (LP). Katie was the vice principal of Lincoln Preparatory and oversaw the

elementary and middle school grades. She had been an educator for ten years. She had her

undergraduate degree in elementary and special education and her master’s degree was in school

administration. She believed her main role “is to support the teachers,” and the teachers’ main

role is “building relationship with their students and creating a culture of learning and safety for

the kids in their classroom.” Katie believed the two main guiding factors in teacher instruction

include curriculum, which provides content and formatting of lessons, and student knowledge,

which shows teachers where further instruction is needed.

When discussing ELA and spelling lessons, Katie wanted to see classrooms where

students were developing a deep understanding of content and student engagement. For

example, when discussing spelling instruction, she explained:

I think especially at the elementary level that the kids need to be taught the rules, given

lots of examples, lots of chances to like work with it, and manipulate . . . letters and

127

sounds and create new words or whatever it may be; to like actually work with it, rather

than just memorize a list and copy it five times every night.

In Fresch’s (2003) survey, throughout the belief’s section the only statement rated below

a three (she gave it a two) focused on the effectiveness of assigning one list to all students. Since

all Lincoln elementary teachers gave all students the same list, this may seem contradictory to

her beliefs. However, struggling spellers were offered either shortened or individualized lists to

help them be successful. Hence, there was not a contradiction between belief and practice. The

three statements she ranked the highest included formal spelling instruction, word sorts, and

integration of spelling into writing. Hence, she had a combination of beliefs which aligned with

a variety of approaches to spelling acquisition instead of one specific approach.

Marissa (LLE). Marissa had five-years’ experience as a reading specialist in a Virginia

public school district. She moved to Delaware during the 2018-2019 school year and worked

part time as a reading specialist for Lincoln Preparatory. During the 2019-2020 school year, she

switched to a first-grade teacher at Lincoln Preparatory. As a reading specialist in Virginia, she

assessed all the students within her school using the Primary Spelling Inventory, grouped

students according to developmental stages, and coached teachers to improve their ELA

instruction. Her previous school used Words their Way as its spelling curriculum. As a first-

grade teacher, she continued with the phonics-based Abeka spelling curriculum with her class

because previous first grade students consistently had strong spelling scores.

Throughout the interview, Marissa stressed the importance of interactive activities and

writing-spelling connections. She stated:

The teacher cannot be the only one that’s ever talking . . .They need to be interacting

with their peers, talking about it, and I feel like that is what keeps them more engaged

128

and when they are more engaged, they learn a lot more . . . you have to get them to buy

into what you are doing.”

Within her classroom, students had choice boards each week; they could create the spelling

words out of playdough, with magnets, or with different colored markers or crayons.

Additionally, she wanted students to connect what they learned in spelling with their

writing and vice versa. For, “kids that write a lot become much better spellers.” Therefore, after

students learned a new list of words, she tried to incorporate the spelling words into writing

pieces. If time was not an issue, she would “have them write stories about, using their spelling

words, because I mean, they can even be silly stories, as long as they are engaged in writing.”

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, the only statement Marissa disagreed with dealt with the

effectiveness of students self-selecting their own spelling words. Conversely, she strongly

agreed the following were effective methods/activities: grouping students according to the

developmental stages, providing direct spelling instruction, incorporating cooperative groups,

manipulatives, and word sorts, and using spelling journals to assess writing and helping connect

writing to spelling. Therefore, even though her background was primarily with a curriculum

based on a developmental stage theory, she agreed with aspects and activities from a variety of

theories.

Emma (LT3). Emma was the third grade teacher at Lincoln Preparatory. This was her

first year as a teacher. She previously worked for two years as an English learner para-

professional for a public school in Delaware. Emma’s spelling instruction followed a weekly

routine. The students were given words on Monday. As the curriculum is Orton-Gillingham

inspired, the words throughout the year were groups according to specific sounds, prefixes, or

suffixes. During the week, the students would do a variety of activities with the words during

129

center time; including, rainbow words, watching Youtube clips, writing silly sentences with the

words, etc.

Emma learned English when she started kindergarten. As a child, spelling was used to

help reinforce pronunciation and vocabulary. Thus, when discussing how her approach to

spelling has changed or stayed the same over the years, she expressed:

Those spelling rules really impact how you’re going to read and how you’re going to

pronounce things, and that was kind of fundamental to where my learning as a second

language was. So, I think . . . having that background knowledge effect, combined with

having the curriculum that I’m teaching now, which is all about, you know, your rules . . .

it’s a lot better than just saying, ‘Here’s your words. We’re just going to practice them in

class.’

Additionally, Emma adjusted the lessons and curriculum to accommodate student needs as

needed. She explained, “It’s like a parent, you want your kids to eat broccoli, you put cheese in

the broccoli, you know?” To help students “absorb” the content, Emma tries to give them:

Activities that are more hands-on, where they are putting together the letters with the

sound or the pattern, then not only are they practicing it, but they are also seeing it

visually. So, you can kind of get multiple learning styles that way.

Furthermore, if students needed more help with spelling and literacy than she could offer in

class, the student could begin small group sessions with the school’s reading specialist. Within

her class, she shortened the list for two students so that they could be successful.

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, Emma agreed (4) or strongly agreed (5) with the

effectiveness of activities based on the developmental word study approach, the traditional

approach, the incidental approach, but also disagreed or was neutral towards other components

130

of the approaches. For instance, she agreed with teacher testing of words and a grade-level

spelling standard (traditional) but disagreed with a common list for all students (traditional). She

strongly agreed with grouping students by developmental stages, but was neutral towards word

sorts. Activities, such as the use of manipulatives and cooperative groups, was discussed in the

interview and ranked highly (5) on the survey.

LeAnne (LT4). LeAnne had been the fourth grade teacher at Lincoln Preparatory School

for fifteen years. She had her bachelor’s degree in elementary and special education. The

lessons observed aligned with her ACSI Spelling teacher’s guide. The lessons were whole group;

however, two students completed other work during this time because they met with the reading

specialist for reading and spelling instruction. The instruction aligned more closely with the

traditional approach to spelling. The words were grouped according to patterns, and students

completed seatwork that included putting the words in alphabetical order and unscrambling

spelling words. While students worked independently on spelling worksheets, LeAnne pulled

several students who struggled with spelling to the back table to provide small group instruction

on spelling rules and syllables.

During the interview, LeAnne discussed that while she routinely uses the ACSI Spelling

curriculum for the entire class, she individualizes lessons and lists to help her struggling spellers.

She stated,

With the students who have special needs or learning disabilities, I will modify the

spelling list or . . . I will do a different spelling program, and I’m willing to try other

programs . . . [but] I have Sitton spelling and so that’s kind of like my fall back if they

need that.

131

During this study, however, LeAnne was trying a new approach, having struggling spellers focus

on sight words instead of completing a specific program.

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, there were a few activities with which she disagreed (i.e.,

usage of grade-level standard and developmental stages showing the students’ spelling levels) or

strongly disagreed (i.e., effectiveness of writing words several times). However, LeAnne agreed

or strongly agreed with eleven of the eighteen questions. Therefore, she concurred with a variety

of activities from all approaches. She strongly agreed with the importance of formal instruction

(traditional) and connecting spelling to reading (incidental). She also strongly agreed with the

effectiveness of workbooks (traditional), word sorts (developmental), cooperative groups

(pedagogical activity), and manipulatives (pedagogical activity).

Results

In this section, the influences of each main unit (i.e., individual school) are discussed and

supported with participant quotes, answers from Fresch’s (2003) survey, and classroom

observations. These themes were developed using Braun and Clark’s (2006) thematic analysis.

This researcher first became familiar with the data by putting the transcriptions and observations

into NVivo. The information from Fresch’s (2003) spelling survey was initially placed in Excel,

and information from section three was additionally placed in tables in Word. Next, to help

decrease coder bias, this researcher and a second coder coded interviews and observations

separately and then discussed the codes. Codes were discussed until 100% agreement was

reached. All qualitative data (i.e., observations and interviews) were compared to quantitative

data from the survey. Once all data was coded, theme piles were created using NVivo. Codes

were combined and counted to determine themes. Once themes were determined, the data was

read again to ensure it supported the theme. Finally, the following five reports were written.

132

The first three reports are within-school findings and are presented in the following order:

(a) Washington Elementary, (b) Jackson Elementary, and (c) Lincoln Preparatory. As this is an

explanatory multiple case study, two thematic models are presented. Therefore, the final two

reports are (d) the thematic model and description of spelling influences on teachers at Lincoln

Preparatory (as a private school) and (e) the thematic model and description of spelling

influences on teachers at Washington and Jackson Elementary Schools (as public schools). The

models were initially created solely using codes and themes from collected data. To strengthen

their validity, published literature was read to determine if the various components were

supported with other findings. The models were supported and therefore unchanged. Finally,

after discussing and supporting each model, the research questions were answered.

Washington Elementary School: Report One

Spelling instruction within Washington Elementary School varied greatly between

teachers. Educators self-reported between zero to forty minutes a week being spent on spelling.

The American Reading Company curriculum promoted an incidental approach to spelling, and

five out of the six educators believed this approach was effective for teaching spelling. The

teacher’s ELA guide had general guidelines for lessons. As a result, teachers were given more

freedom to how they would approach and teach specific lessons. One teacher may have students

chorally read the day’s core text and another teacher may have students sit on the carpet as she

read a core text aloud. Lessons observed between classrooms of the same grade, even if

observed on the same day, and from the same unit, could have vastly different approaches.

The American Reading Company promotes itself as a framework as opposed to a scripted

curriculum. It allows teachers to develop lessons with their individual students in mind. With

spelling, this meant the teacher needed to have the necessary content knowledge in order to

133

provide spelling interventions and see the need within their students. Three primary influences

of spelling instruction at Washington Elementary included curriculum, teacher knowledge, and

student influence.

Curriculum. Curriculum was the most coded node throughout the interviews. Explicit

spelling instruction was not part of the curriculum. Rather, teachers included spelling instruction

per their own discretion. As exemplified on Fresch’s (2003) survey, teachers utilized a wide

variety of instructional practices, with three of four teachers reporting they did not teach spelling.

In keeping with the incidental spelling approach of the American Reading Company, all teachers

recorded they never taught spelling with practice sheets nor had weekly spelling tests.

When reporting how they taught spelling, with 1 being never and 5 being always, each

question had an average of 2.5 and a range of 1-5. Therefore, educators (principal, literacy

expert, and teachers) within the school reported spelling was taught via whole group, class mini-

lessons, small group mini-lessons, or individualized instruction with varied degrees of frequency.

Akin to the curriculum, when teachers reported how the words were organized, the method with

the highest average (3.75) was from student writing. The second reported organization of

spelling words, with a mean of 2.75, was according to spelling patterns; as the ratings ranged

from 1 (never) - 5 (usually), 2.75 was between not very often (2) and about half the time (3).

These survey results were supported by the interviews and observations.

Sarah (WLE) shared, “We just use American Reading Company’s core . . . so it’s

embedded in that. It’s not isolated.” Furthermore, when asked about motivating unmotivated

students to complete spelling, Sarah stated, “Well, I guess I first need to just ask, ‘Why would I

do an isolated spelling activity?”’ Jasmine (WT3N) reported the administration expected

spelling to be taught with “osmosis.” In other words, as reading and writing took place, spelling

134

improved. While the wording was different, Sarah stated, “I think, again, that goes hand in hand

with their writing . . . so I think having that opportunity to practice with them one-on-one and

conference with them, tells us a lot about them, as spellers.”

In addition to following the teacher’s guide, training took place with implementation of

the program. This training helped to provide the same general understanding of the embedded

spelling approach, which will continue to guide teacher instruction. Dawn (WT4N) conveyed, “I

mean they’re saying that research shows that spelling is more successful taught embedded. You

know, taught throughout, through writing.” Likewise, Samantha (WT3L) reflected,

When I first came here . . . my first year we were doing spelling tests. So, we were doing

weekly lists, where you were doing activities with those at home. Those have kind of

gone by the wayside as, you know, research has come out, and . . . they say that that’s not

best practice anymore.

Ashley concurred but discussed a lack of focus on spelling: “I wouldn’t say there’s a huge

approach to it in the classroom when we’re . . . editing writing and those kinds of things.”

Teacher content knowledge. Since the ELA curriculum and the administration expected

teachers to make informed instructional choices, teacher knowledge about spelling became

apparent. Past trainings and experiences were evident within their classrooms. While not

explicitly calling it spelling instruction, the Washington educators all discussed word work

activities they completed with their students. Samantha (WT3L) and Ashley (WT4L) both

discussed receiving Words their Way training during university classes; therefore, Ashley posited

if students “have an IEP goal” then Words their Way was utilized to help differentiate the word

study. Samantha explained with Words their Way activities, students “start to see those

connections, and when they make those connections, I think it helps them incorporate that [i.e.,

135

spelling patterns] into their learning.” Akin to Words their Way activities, Sarah (WLE)

expressed, “I like to do word sorts. I like to play which one doesn’t belong.”

Morphological parts of words (i.e., prefixes, suffixes, and roots) were also taught. The

words parts were briefly included in the third grade units and discussed a bit more with the

fourth and fifth grade curriculum. However, all third and fourth grade teachers supplemented

additional word work activities into their lessons. In third grade, Samantha discussed prefixes

and suffixes with her struggling readers in her small groups; Jasmine completed a whole group

mini-lesson on word parts. The fourth grade teachers, Ashley and Dawn, completed warm-up

activities integrating word work.

Teachers also included focused attention to patterns and phonics within words. The

literacy expert, Sarah, explained:

You’re always searching for patterns . . . the English language is very tricky, because you

can see the word “read” and also say “read” depending on how it’s used in a sentence.

So, I think you have to be flexible, but I think it’s always searching for patterns and then

do those patterns always work? And what’s the exception? So, even down, like in

kindergarten, to you know, even now, in fifth grade, we’re always searching for what are

the patterns that we’re seeing?

Both Jasmine (WT3N) and Ashley (WT4L) discussed explicitly teaching specific blends or

phonics to students. Jasmine believed students needed to have “explicit instruction in silent

blends. Like ‘gh’ ‘wh’ those sorts of things help.” Ashley ensured her English learners could

correctly transcribe the English alphabet. Dawn (WT4N) also taught a mini-lesson on a specific

pattern. Then she would look through “real books and try to find words that kind of support that

spelling lesson. Then we would practice it; kids would practice it in their own writing.”

136

Student influence. Student/s was the fourth most mentioned word throughout the

interviews (following: (a) spelling, (b) know, and (c) think). It was mentioned 99 times and kids

was mentioned 32 times; a combined average of 21.8 times per educator. Other student-centered

words (i.e, engaged, analytic, interesting, motivate, and differentiate) were mentioned a

combined total of 136 times. Small group instruction was guided by both student Powergoals

and perceived literacy needs of the students. Ashley stated, “if I had struggling spellers, I pull

them back in a small group” for individualized instruction. Likewise, Samantha said the

student’s “reading ability, so their reading level . . . really help me think about their decoding

skills, and which, you know, skills they’re lacking that are leading to the spelling issues.” Then

small group lessons were planned around the needed skills.

All Washington participants also discussed creating lessons meant to make content

meaningful and engaging to the students. Sarah (WLE) asserted:

They [the students] have to know the need. They have to know the relevance . . . if I see

the majority of my class doing something wrong in their spelling, then that might be a

five-minute mini lesson, but . . . I’m not going to whip out a whole half hour, and,

‘Everybody, we’re going to do this worksheet or you’re going to write this.’ No, because

that’s not motivating for me as a teacher.

Similarly, Dawn shared students “are reading and writing every single day, and it’s

exciting for them. They’re excited about what they’re reading and what they are writing about.

So to me, that's half the battle of getting them to become better at spelling.” This sense of student

inquiry and relevance was present in most lessons observed. Students were researching topics

they found interesting, and spelling corrections, if they took place, were linked to their own

137

writing. Small group instruction, including word work, was usually connected to books the

students chose to read during silent sustained reading.

Jackson Elementary: Report Two

Spelling instruction within Jackson Elementary School was very similar between

teachers. If walking from one class to another in the same grade level, while the front and

background of the Smartboard presentation may be different, the lessons were clearly from the

same lesson plan. On Part 1 (Instructional Practices) section of Fresch’s (2003) spelling survey,

the answers were very similar. For instance, all educators reported they always (5) assigned a

weekly list whole group and never (1) assigned spelling words according to student suggestions

nor individualized spelling words. Teachers reported spending between 30-120 minutes a week

with spelling instruction. The teachers’ guides had scripted lessons, and administration expected

a high degree of curriculum fidelity. Therefore, the difference spent on spelling did not vary

greatly between classes; rather, the range could be attributed to what teachers considered to be

spelling instruction. Within Jackson, curriculum, district expectations, and teacher content

knowledge were the top three themes identified within the data.

Curriculum. Bookworms had been influential both on teacher knowledge of spelling as

well as the method through which spelling had been taught. At the third and fourth grade level,

Bookworms used syllables to teach spelling, and students were expected to use the spelling

words in super sentences. Therefore, teachers received training on the different syllable types,

and if they had questions, they could ask the school reading specialist or the Bookworms reading

specialists. When discussing spelling, the word, syllable, was mentioned 82 times; an average of

13.6 times per educator.

138

One commonality between all the educators was a belief in the effectiveness of

Bookworms. Matthew (JP) said the curriculum “helps with their spelling. So that’s been

something that’s been interesting to see, because we’ve never had a set spelling quiz or spelling

instruction.” Likewise, Mary (JT3L) stated, “the data is there to show that Bookworms is much

more effective than anything else that I have used.” When discussing Bookworms, Kayla (JT3N)

discussed her son’s experience, “My second grader started the program this year, and he did pilot

it in first grade . . . and his reading is taking off, really flying.”

When asked about how they would teach spelling if spelling become a special, Joanna

(JT4L) “would still do a lot of the same activities that I do with Bookworms.” Andrew (JT4N)

concurred; he would simply “have more spelling words. Therefore, it would be more super

sentences. It’s effective stuff.” Likewise, Mary replied, “I would teach this curriculum because it

works. I mean flat out simple, it works.”

District expectations. With the high degree of expected curriculum fidelity, which is a

district office expectation, teachers were not given the freedom to deviate from the curriculum.

When discussing the spelling curriculum, Matthew, the vice-principal, explained:

They’re expected to follow it with fidelity. Typically, the students are given two spelling

words a day, and the teachers then utilize that time to explain the word, use it in a

sentence and then break it apart by syllable, and not only is the teacher doing that, but the

students are writing that in their journal as well.

When asked how her administration expected spelling to be taught, Mary remarked, “Just

like the book says. No ifs, ands, or buts . . . We are all teaching it the exact [paused], supposed to

be teaching it the exact same this year. So, there’s no question.” Joanna also reported, “In our

district there would be no changing the curriculum. That’s pretty well dictated to us, and there

139

isn’t a lot of flexibility with that.” In almost the exact same words, Andrew posited, “They

expect us to follow the curriculum.”

This high level of curriculum fidelity means teachers needed to adapt their preference for

teaching to comply with expectations. As Kayla pointed out, “There’s not a whole lot of

[student] collaborating [in the curriculum], whereas in the past I have.” The word scripted was

used 17 times; an average of 2.8 times per educator.

Teacher content knowledge. Before the implementation of Bookworms, spelling

instruction, if it occurred, was dependent on teachers’ previous training. Jessica (JLE) reflected,

Spelling was definitely not a piece that was chosen [to be included into reading

instruction]. It was more on just the comprehension, that type of thing. There was very

little spelling involved, except for the teachers who already had the foundation because

before we had Wonders, we had Reading First . . . the people that were here, knew those

foundational skills and would incorporate them but it wasn’t part of the curriculum. It

was only hit and miss on who incorporated it.

With the training provided by the Bookworms team and guidance within the teacher’s

guide, most teachers developed a greater understanding about spelling instruction. Specifically,

teachers illustrated knowledge of the syllable types. The following words were within the 200

most stated words: syllable/s (82 times), patterns (50 times), vowels (38 times), and super

sentence (34 times).

Mary struggled with teaching spelling in previous years, she now felt equipped to teach

students “the how and the why” of spelling. However, not all teachers feel the same way.

Joanna suggested,

140

I feel like there’s a general lack of understanding in how to teach it, and I feel like a lot of

people are so stressed out about trying to get through the curriculum that it’s literally like

on a slide, the word’s there, the one day that it’s introduced, they say what the word

means and they roll on. I don’t necessarily believe that it is taught in some other

classrooms. I do think there’s a definite need for PD.

Therefore, while spelling curriculum and syllable types were embedded within instruction, time

spent discussing words varied somewhat according to the teacher’s knowledge.

Lincoln Preparatory School: Report Three

As a small private school, there was not a district office. Rather, the principals had to

perform duties as a superintendent, curriculum and instruction director, head of student services,

and principals. Since they did not receive funds from Delaware’s Department of Education, they

did not need to adhere to the state’s benchmarks or state test. Rather, teachers and principals had

a larger degree of teacher freedom to choose curriculum and lessons based on their pedagogical,

instructional, and faith beliefs. While the administration wanted some uniformity between

grades, first grade uses Abeka Spelling, second and third grade use an Orton-Gillingham inspired

spelling curriculum, and fourth grade uses ACSI Spelling.

On Fresch’s (2003) survey, educators recorded they always gave students a common list

and used worksheets to help reinforce concepts. They also strongly agreed cooperative groups

were important and spelling should be integrated into writing. Teachers spent an average of

ninety minutes a week on spelling. Within this context, the three most prominent themes

included external accountability/student focus, teacher pedagogy and content knowledge, and

curriculum.

141

External accountability and student influence. This was the most coded strand at

Lincoln for the external accountability source was closely linked to student influence. Unlike

public schools, the funding sources for Lincoln were fundraisers, parents, and community

donors. While parents could pressure the school to make certain decisions, unlike the

Department of Education, individual parents could not force change. The school’s accountability

had direct or indirect effect throughout instructional choices. For instance, public schools in

Delaware ensured curriculum aligned with state standards. Lincoln wanted the curriculum to

have a research-based pedagogy and faith-based beliefs. Public school teachers had their ratings

tied to test scores and formal observations. At Lincoln, the teacher was observed twice a year,

but they did not receive ratings. State test expectations may pressure public school teachers and

districts to teach to the test. The teachers at Lincoln wanted to see students making progress as

evidenced by grades, running records, and parent and teacher observations.

When asked how the state test or state standards influenced their classroom instruction,

LeAnne (LT4) stated, “Not at all,” and Emma (LT3) concurred, “They don’t at all.” LeAnne

further explained, “I do not keep up with state standards because I knew that they had gotten rid

of spelling, and they are just bringing it back again.” Marissa (LLE) observed not having to

follow the state standards with the same rigidity of public schools allowed her to “skip over a

lesson because the students had already really learned the year prior . . . it wouldn’t be so

enforced for us to do that standard all the way.” The lack of DOE accountability has led to

greater attention being given to student needs. The words, students or kids, were mentioned far

more frequently during the interviews at Lincoln (42.3 times per educator) than at either of the

public schools (Washington: 21.8 times per educator; Jackson: 27.5 times per educator).

142

Instead of being held accountable for student results by DOE, the school followed general

guidelines by an accreditation authority, but principals were the main source of oversite. To

ensure some level of accountability, the school paid for students to take the Terra Nova Test in

the elementary and middle school and administered the PSAT and SAT in high school. As the

tests did not affect funding or school scores, however, the pressure on the teachers and students

was low.

Teacher autonomy. Teacher autonomy refers to the amount of freedom or autonomy

teachers have for “self-directed decision making” (Erss, 2018, p. 244). At Lincoln, the limited

amount of external accountability meant administration carried the full responsibility of school

and instructional oversite. When discussing administration, Marissa (LLE) voiced they “see us

as educated people who can make wise educational decisions and know what’s best for the

class.” In LeAnne’s words, “the administration usually supports whatever I feel like is best for

these students.” As a result, teachers had high degrees of teacher autonomy and could teach in

accordance with their beliefs about effective spelling instruction.

Therefore, Emma’s and LeAnne’s curriculum and approaches varied greatly. Emma

believed for spelling instruction to be effective, activities must be hands-on “where they are

putting together the letters with the sound or the pattern, then not only are they practicing it, but

they are also seeing it visually. So, you can kind of get multiple learning styles that way.” Emma

used an Orton-Gillingham inspired curriculum. She taught spelling primarily focused on

phonics and spelling rules and used centers with videos, worksheets, and interactive activities

(e.g., writing letters in shaving cream) to practice the rules. The primary method of

differentiation was either to have the students meet with the reading specialist for spelling or

reducing the number of words on the weekly quiz.

143

LeAnne’s spelling instruction sided with a modified traditional spelling paradigm. Like

Emma, she had a spelling-pattern weekly focus; unlike Emma, the student’s primary spelling

activities came from their spelling workbook. When discussing effective instruction, LeAnne

noted,

The word shapes seem to work well with my students . . . word shape is where you have

a word and you just have boxes, and so you have an up and a down . . . I believe that

works well with them because they start to see the actual letter and the placement of that

letter in the word.

In addition to different beliefs about effective spelling activities and varying curriculum,

LeAnne’s individualized spelling instruction was also different from Emma’s. LeAnne

conveyed the students take a weekly pre-test:

If they’ve missed almost all of them, then they have 10 words . . . specifically as a

modified spelling list; and that’s what they’re tested on. At the end of the week, they’ll

still take the whole test, but they will only be graded on those ten.

For students who were still unsuccessful with that method, LeAnne said she previously would

“go to the Sitton Spelling.” LeAnne had attended trainings in Sitton Spelling and had used it in

small group instruction over the years with her struggling spellers. This year she completed a

different approach with struggling spellers, which focused on sight words.

In this setting, the high degree of teacher autonomy resulted in instruction having as

many differences between classes as similarities. Differences included varying types of (a)

curriculum, (b) methods of individualization, (c) methodological approaches to spelling, and (d)

pedagogical approaches with spelling activities. Commonalities included (a) weekly spelling list

144

and test, (b) focus on word patterns, (c) reading specialist pulling struggling spellers, and (d)

shortened lists for struggling spellers.

Curriculum. The curriculum was the final identified key influencer of instruction.

Curriculum was mentioned 85 times in the interviews, an average of 21.5 times per educator.

The instruction within the classroom was a close mirror of the curriculum. However, unlike

public schools, Lincoln did not have a five-year curriculum cycle. Therefore, new curriculum

came from Teachers-Pay-Teachers (TPT) or from traditional faith-based curriculums. If serious

problems arose with a new curriculum, it could be changed mid-year.

When Emma was discussing curriculum, she mentioned changing the math and English

curriculum within her classroom from a TPT curriculum to ACSI Math and English Language

Arts.

I think that teachers are amazing at creating hands-on activities for learning. I don’t think

it’s realistic to have a Teachers-Pay-Teachers for math, reading and English. You spend 5

hours just prepping for one lesson because you have to make all these things. So, I ended

up changing . . . I was like, ‘This is not working. I just cannot do this anymore.’ And we

changed the math and the English. So, I’m sure if I truly wanted to change the spelling, I

could.

The teacher voice in curriculum helped teachers to use curriculums which aligned with their

pedagogies but, as LeAnn pointed out,

In our school, they each use something different, in the lower grades and they use

something different in the higher grades. So, we’re all inconsistent . . . To me, I don’t

care if we all do ‘this,’ or all do ‘that.’ But let's just all do something together.

145

Lincoln was starting the process of curriculum alignment and creating scope and sequence in

order to be accredited by ACSI. However, without a curriculum specialist, teachers would need

to be the ones to align the subjects.

Thematic Models

Initially, data was going to be used from all three schools to create one thematic model to

describe instructional spelling choices of teachers. Yet, as mentioned previously, Lincoln

Preparatory had a distinct lack of influence from (a) state and federal policies, (b) district office,

and (c) funding from Delaware’s Department of Education. Furthermore, a primary influencer

of instruction, curriculum was decided upon and implemented differently in Lincoln.

Consequently, Lincoln had fewer instructional influences on teachers and needed its own model.

To create both models, data was triangulated from interviews, follow up emails after

observations or informal conversations, and classroom observations. Fresch’s (2003) survey was

used indirectly for the cross-case analysis. For instance, it highlighted “what” material was

being taught, “how” spelling was being taught, and “what” teachers believed. This information

was used in conversations to help illuminate “why” teachers used their given approach. After the

models were created, published literature was read and analyzed to see how the models fit in

other findings. Thus, the next two sections discuss and illustrate the cross-case analysis of

Lincoln Preparatory (Report Four) and the cross-case analysis of Washington and Jackson

Elementary Schools (Report Five).

Thematic Model for Lincoln Preparatory: Report Four

The primary influencers for spelling instruction included (a) influences upon and

adoption of curriculum, (b) student achievement and knowledge, (c) administrative expectations,

146

and (d) teacher’s knowledge, pedagogy, and training. The instructional thematic model for

Lincoln Preparatory is as follows:

Figure 4

Influences Behind Instructional Choices for Spelling at Lincoln Preparatory School

Teacher Knowledge, Pedagogy, and Training

Parent Expectations

Teacher Knowledge and Pedagogy Curriculum Teacher Instruction

Admin Knowledge and Pedagogy Admin Expectation

Finances Student Achievement

and Knowledge

Influences upon and adoption of curriculum. One of the top influencers of instruction,

as shown in Report Three, was curriculum. Curriculum was chosen by teachers and

administration; however, both finances and parents were into consideration as well. To begin

with, finances limited curricular options. For example, during the 2018-2019, Lincoln reviewed

its curriculum and discussed purchasing the Fountas and Pinnell English Language Arts

curriculum. However, as the cost far exceeded their budget, they opted for a program from

Teachers Pay Teachers for first through third grade. Furthermore, as the school could not afford

an outside source to train teachers in new ELA or spelling curriculum, Lincoln teachers either

taught themselves (via the internet) the curriculum’s concepts or sought help from the reading

specialist. Therefore, implementation of new curriculum resulted in teacher knowledge or

content growth.

147

Parents also had a greater voice in curriculum at Lincoln than in a public school. During

an informal discussion with the vice-principal, Katie shared some parents sent their students to

the school with an expectation of a more traditional approach. In a follow-up email she clarified,

It's hard to know how much to listen to parent concerns/complaints and how much to just

say, ‘This is what we're doing!’ It does seem like we have a greater responsibility to

listen to them as they ARE paying tuition. However, what is that line between them

feeling entitled to have their way verses our big picture plan as a school? That's a fine

line. I would say we don't typically get a big pushback when it comes to curriculum, but

that is as long as we don't ‘stray’ too much into making ours look like the public

school/Common Core . . . we definitely see that if we want to make changes from the

traditional, we need to be ready to explain our WHY to parents so that they can

understand our reasoning behind the switch and not fear that we are simply providing the

same education as the public school, but just charging tuition for it.

Likewise, Emma (LT3) shared, “If parents truly had a big concern about it [the curriculum] and

they were to go to administration,” the school may decide to “change it.” Therefore, in a public

school, parents may complain about curriculum, but as they cannot legally stop paying their

taxes, their voices may not be as heard. In Lincoln, if they articulated valid concerns, parents

had a chance of influencing the curriculum, or if the curriculum was being changed to a new

format, chances were high an explanation would be given to them beforehand.

Student achievement and knowledge. Student achievement within class will also

influence both classroom instruction and the curriculum. During the 2018-2019, all elementary

students (first through fourth grades) were given the Primary Spelling Inventory. Students in

first grade did exceptionally well with spelling. Therefore, the first grade teacher kept Abeka

148

Spelling while the second and third grade teachers changed to a different curriculum during the

2019-2020 school year. Student achievement and knowledge would also determine levels of

individualized attention they receive; they may have in-class modified lessons or they could be

pulled out for small group instruction.

Additionally, student achievement helps influence teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and

training. For instance, when asked, “When working with students who struggle with spelling,

how effective do you believe spelling instruction will be?”, Emma (LT3) posited,

I have a student that struggled with it, that we just decided, for their benefit, to send them

over to our reading specialist, and have them work one-on-one . . . for their spelling

curriculum . . . it’s very effective. This student was also a struggling reader, and once he

was given that help in spelling and reading you really saw a tremendous progress on their

behalf.

The student achievement and growth reinforced both the activities she did in class with him and

the activities he did with the reading specialist. Successful lessons and units resulting in

increased student achievement, acted as a form of “response outcomes” imparting “information

on how behavior [or instruction] must be structured to achieve given purposes and point to

environmental predictors of likely happenings” (Bandura, 1986, p. 106). In other words, student

achievement or failure often results in repeating or discontinuing approaches to content or

activities.

At Lincoln Preparatory, both teachers stated they talked with the reading specialist if they

had questions or concerns about students’ spelling (i.e., informal professional development). In

LeAnne’s (LT4) case, she was working with the reading specialist to try a new approach to small

group spelling remediation incorporating sight words. Thus, student achievement directly

149

influenced both her instruction and her training. If this new approach was successful, then future

spelling remediation would most likely reflect her new approach.

Administrative expectations. Administrative expectations also influenced spelling

instruction. Katie, the assistant principal, explained, “I think that spelling is important. So, I

think that it needs to be in a classroom.” Hence, at Lincoln, the administration expectation was it

will be taught, and teachers will use their previous training and the curriculum to teach it. In

public schools, since the passing of No Child Left Behind (2001), the expected implementation of

research-based practices resulted in a consistent decrease in teacher autonomy over the past

twenty years (Lundstrom, 2015). However, Lincoln does not receive funds from the

government. Unlike public schools, Lincoln’s high level of teacher autonomy has remained

unaffected due to primarily being accountable to an administration who trusts them to make

research-based choices.

Teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and training. Finally, teacher knowledge, training, and

pedagogy influenced spelling instruction. As previously mentioned, before this year, LeAnne

used her training and previous success with Sitton Spelling to provide remediation. ACSI had

been successful with her on and above level spellers. During the 2020-2021 school year, she

worked with the reading specialist to try a different approach with struggling readers. Therefore,

her beliefs were clearly visible within spelling lessons, methods of individualization, and

pedagogical activities (all of which, as previously discussed, aligned with a modified traditional

approach). She used a combination of explicit spelling and phonics instruction for all students.

With struggling spellers, she individualized assignments and scaffolded instruction based on

their level.

150

Likewise, Emma’s knowledge, pedagogy, and training was also seen within her spelling

lessons. During the interview she stated,

I was an ESL student. So, part of my spelling was learning the rules for how to

pronounce it . . . [it] is really similar to what the curriculum that I have for my classroom

now is. Once I was able to test out of that curriculum, or ESL, in third or fourth grade,

our spelling was just, ‘Here’s your list of 20 words, memorize it at home, and then you

have your test on Friday.’ . . . So, I understand the importance of how, you know, those

spelling rules really impact how you’re going to read and how you’re going to pronounce

things.

Therefore, Emma adhered to the multi-linguistic approach, using orthographical rules,

morphological word parts, and phonological sounds. Her main method of individualization

included shortening spelling lists and having struggling spellers work with the reading specialist.

Thematic Model for Washington and Jackson Elementary: Report Five

The primary influencers for spelling instruction include (a) department of education and

district office expectations, (b) school and principal expectations, (c) district resources, (d)

curricular choices, (e) student achievement on benchmarks and state tests, (f) Student behavior

and current knowledge, and (g) teacher training experience and pedagogy. The instructional

thematic model for Washington and Jackson is as follows:

151

Figure 5

Influences Behind Instructional Choices for Spelling at Washington and Jackson

Department of Education Expectations

(Includes Standards and State Testing Expectations)

District Office

Curriculum Choice District & Principal District Resources

Expectations

Student Achievements

on Benchmarks

& State Tests Teacher Instructional Choices

Student Behavior & Teacher Training,

Current Knowledge Experience, & Pedagogy

Department of Education and district office expectations. Delaware’s Department of

Education (DOE) gives frameworks and rules to which schools must adhere if they are to keep

their funding. Over the past twenty years, the DOE’s role has become more centralized as they,

in the words Schneider and Saultz (2020), use “standards-based accountability to foster a more

tightly coupled system [with school districts]—one in which state and federal officials have

historically unprecedented levels of control, albeit indirect, over classroom practice” (p. 420).

The DOE outlines how teachers, schools, and principals will be rated. They determine which

standards should be used and how the standards should be assessed. They outline the many

requirements for how schools are to function. In Delaware, public schools utilize the Common

Core Standards and administer the Smarter Balanced (SBAC) assessment.

152

Yet, while the Department of Education provides guidelines, the implementation of

requirements looks different in varying districts. Within this study, the districts had many

differences (e.g., tax bases, student demographics, teacher attrition rates, educational

backgrounds of teachers, etc.) that may have influenced district decisions. Moreover,

administrative figures may have different approaches to leadership and divergent educational

beliefs. Within this study, Washington’s district office chose curriculum that facilitated a higher

degree of teacher choice. Conversely, Jackson followed a more scripted lesson format, and

teachers within the same grade level were expected to have similar lessons. Both curricular

choices influenced the expectations within districts.

District and principal expectations. In response to pressure and guidelines from DOE,

the district office creates district-wide expectations. Principals facilitate and implement the

district office’s requirements. For instance, Matthew (LP) articulated one of the top expectations

from the district office was to ensure “teachers are following the curriculum to fidelity,

delivering effective instruction . . . You get a lot of communication from our bosses that we’re

expected to pass down to our teachers as well.” When entering an English language arts

classroom, he stated,

The first thing I would look for is the objective, the lesson objective. What is it they’re

learning about today? What’s the goal of the lesson? And it should be in question form,

that way when it’s time for closure the students can answer that and the teachers can

decide whether they were effective in their instruction. If the students got it or not. There

should also be some sort of collaborative piece, and I’m very Bookworms focused now.

So when I go in and I see a block of shared read, I should see the students reading as the

teacher’s reading out loud.

153

The district and principal expectations had direct influences upon instructional choices of

teachers. As conveyed in Report Two, all Jackson teachers understood there was, as shared by

Joanna, “no changing the curriculum. That’s pretty well dictated to us.” Mary concurred, “We

are all . . . supposed to be teaching it the exact same this year.” The district office’s expectation,

which was reinforced by school administration, was teachers would utilize a specific lesson

format. All Jackson teachers in this study had a close adherence to those expectations.

Conversely, Michelle’s (WP) expectations from the district and for English language arts

classrooms were more general. She believed her top three district expectations were “to be an

instructional leader, to be a building manager, and the third one is to be a liaison between the

school community and the parent community.” When she entered a classroom, she expected that

“There’s some level productive struggle that . . . there's no one just sitting not really engaged,

that everybody can be engaged . . . sharing of ideas, like student interaction, think-pair-share;

things like movement and reading.”

Spelling instruction was not a district or building expectation. This lack of expectation

affected spelling instruction because, as Ashley (WT4L) specified,

The other thing too with our district, we’re not having anything spelling related that

we’re scoring and those types of things. So that affects the influence and focus that we

do have on our spelling instruction. That’s kind of like, ‘Okay, we have this two-hour

block, not that spelling’s not important, but there’s not a focus on it.’ We’re not

collecting data for it. So sometimes it might get pushed aside, and that’s just the reality of

it.

District resources. District resources include both physical items (e.g., SmartBoards,

student computers, software programs, workbooks, etc.) and personnel. The physical items will

154

influence how the specific lessons are taught. For instance, depending on classroom materials, if

completing a sort, the students may complete it online, use paper, or write on personal

whiteboards. Within the context of this study, human resources had direct effects upon

classroom instruction, specifically grade-level teachers, reading specialists, and curriculum

coaches.

During the interviews, each teacher from Washington and Jackson discussed going to the

district’s reading specialist if they had a question with spelling. Ashley (WT4L) expressed if the

reading specialist “didn’t know, she could always reach out to, either other reading specialists or

we have our elementary edu. coordinator.” Jasmine (WT3N) elucidated:

I was trained in my last school [which was in the same school district] by an awesome

reading specialist . . . I still text her . . . we talked about how writing was so hard for

students, especially when they couldn’t spell, but it's like if it’s not hard, then you’re not

learning. So, she’s helped me and supported me a lot with different types of graphic

organizers, to like put those building blocks in place.

Likewise, at Jackson, Joanna (JT4L) conveyed when she encountered issues with the spelling

curriculum, she went to the reading specialist’s office. Joanna clarified, “I wouldn’t go to her

like, ‘Oh my God, what do I do about this?’ It was more just, ‘This is a real concern.’”

In addition to reading specialists, two public school teachers stated they would ask other

teachers on their teams. Kayla (JT3N) explained, “I would even ask some of the other teachers,

because some of the other teachers do little thingies here and there.” In Jackson, three teachers

also discussed going to the Bookworms’ reading specialists and coaches with questions. Joanna

mentioned her school has “such a close relationship with the Bookworms coaches.” Kayla stated,

155

“I would ask one of our Bookworms coaches, if I had a question, like, ‘My kids aren’t getting

this spelling, what could I do?”’

Literacy coaching and teacher collaboration were concrete aspects of curricular

implementation at Jackson. Jackson educators saw model lessons and had questions answered if

they had issues. Washington educators did not have a formal literacy coaching program (like

Jackson) but five of the six educators discussed someone in the district who they would ask if

they had questions. The one educator who did not mention a person in the district was Sarah

(WLE). Rather, she remarked, “My literacy rock star is Kylene Beers. So, I would always want

to know what she’s thinking . . . she is a professional researcher/instructor.”

Curricular choices. Within this study, the curriculum was the backbone of spelling

instruction. How the curriculum was chosen, however, reflected the funding source. When the

Common Core was implemented, public schools in Delaware bought or created curriculum

aligning with the Common Core. For the curriculum to be kept, the state test scores must

support its effectiveness with student achievement benchmarks and with the state test. Jackson

had initially invested in Wonders. After the five-year curriculum review, Jessica, Jackson’s

literacy expert, explained they reviewed curriculum used by successful districts with similar

demographics. After talking with educators within those districts and completing observations,

they decided to switch to Bookworms. Jessica posited,

It [the state test] is a strong factor in choosing instruction and how we go about teaching

that instruction. I know I hear it from teachers all the time, ‘But this is going to be on the

state test, that's not in that curriculum’ or ‘This is, I see that on the state test, how are we

going to prepare our kids for that?’

156

Typically, public school districts in Delaware chose new curriculum after piloting two or

three different curriculums for a year. Then, after ensuring alignment with the state standards

and talking with the curriculum committee (i.e., teachers, administration, district personnel, and

parents), the new curriculum was chosen. In Washington, the American Reading Company was

chosen with this process. In Jackson, Jessica discussed, “We didn't pilot anything except for

Bookworms because we really felt like that was the way to go. We wanted teacher by-in. So, we

shared it with them, and once they started it, they were hooked.”

With the curricular choice, training of the program ensued. All teachers from Jackson

listed being trained in Bookworms as one of their spelling in-service opportunities. Whereas,

since spelling was not explicitly taught with ARC, if teachers from Washington listed training in

spelling, it was included in a college course. After ARC was implemented, Washington decided

to cease teaching explicit spelling in keeping with ARC’s incidental approach to spelling

acquisition. After the interview, Dawn expressed she had tried to still have a word focus on

several words a week, usually with irregular words or homophones. She did not take grades or

test students on the words. However, parents complained to administration, and she was told to

discontinue the spelling instruction. Thus, the curriculum’s underlying beliefs affected her

classroom instruction.

Student achievement on benchmarks and state tests. In addition to influencing the

curricular choices, the state test influenced instructional choices. However, it more heavily

influenced instruction in Jackson than in Washington. Mary highlighted, “It guides everything

we do, all the benchmarking. Of course, it’s not really a choice; it is what it is.” In Delaware,

both Kayla and Andrew pointed out, SBAC scores were tied to teacher ratings, adding another

level of stress. When discussing the state test, Andrew asserted, “Every day, I would always

157

mention something about SBAC, you know, whether it be the multiple choice, process of

elimination, or making connections. Just constant.”

The educators from Washington did not discuss SBAC as frequently as educators in

Lincoln. Samantha mentioned, “We’ve tried to make sure they’re exposed to different formats . .

. [but] I feel like we don’t really focus on that too much.” However, when Jasmine (WT3N) was

asked if they did a lot of test preparation beforehand, she responded, “Oh yeah!” Thus, as

needed, the curriculum was supplemented to ensure students were prepared for the test. As

Ashley (WT4L) explained:

ARC is lacking multiple choice assessments and those types of things, and so we have to,

like what the kids are doing independently today, we have to find ways to still

incorporate that in there. Give them access to practice for those types of things.

Two of the lessons observed in Ashley’s class had components that prepared students for

the state test and, while aligned with the standards, was not from the curriculum. For instance,

during the first observed lesson, she conveyed, “When it comes to the state test, you will have to

look at multiple sources. We will be doing test prep, ten minutes here and there to prepare us.”

She then had the students review and discuss three short paragraphs they read the previous day

on the same topic and compare and contrast the stories using evidence from the text to support

their ideas.

Student behavior and current knowledge. Students or kids was the fourth most spoken

word during interviews (296 times) at Washington and Jackson. It was behind spelling (542

times), know (361 times), and words (354 times). Both schools adapted instruction to

accommodate student behavior and knowledge. At Washington, spelling instruction was

typically not a focus within the classroom. When it took place, it was usually individualized and

158

integrated into word work. For instance, Dawn and Ashley both put red dots at the beginning of

the lines in student work to convey the number of misspelled words. During observations with

the third grade teachers, Jasmine and Samantha embedded instruction on either phonics or

affixes. The students’ needs and academic levels had a direct correlation with individual or

small group lessons.

In Jackson, with the high level of curriculum fidelity, the student influence on classroom

instruction was not overtly visible within spelling. Student knowledge did not influence whole

group lessons. All students were expected to complete the same activities and spell the same

words. However, there was also a daily small-group ELA block where students were grouped

according to ability and struggling readers received additional decoding practice, which could

aid in spelling.

In both schools, whether or not content was adjusted for students, teachers believed in the

importance of making content meaningful and/or making connections with the content.

Therefore, activities or direct instruction was tailored to help increase student engagement. Both

Joanna (JT4L) and Andrew (JT4N) mentioned using humor and helping students to make

connections with the words. Andrew takes words and “I can really get goofy with them and

make it funny or serious, and I think that helps.” When discussing introducing the words, Joanna

related she begins with questions,

‘Do you see anything that looks familiar . . .in the beginning of the word, in the end of

the word? Ok, there’s a little bit in the middle, there’s letters that look like.’ Just little

things . . . There was one that my kids made a connection right away with, ‘Oh that’s, we

already had that word.’ And it’s got a prefix in front of it, but the prefix changed the

entire meaning of it, but they were able to make the connection with words that they had

159

previously learned . . . I think it like has to be done in an informal way, where their brains

can connect what they already know. Like, they’ve got it up there. You’ve just got to give

them opportunities to activate it and make those connections.

Kayla (JT3N) shared that with Bookworms the students enjoyed the spelling. She stated, “I have

not had yet one kid who is not motivated with the spelling.”

With ARC, the teachers discussed ways of increasing engagement through inquiry and

working with peers. Ashley (WT4L) expressed, “I don’t like going through and pointing out

which words are spelled incorrectly, I like them to try to figure out and determine.” Samantha

(WT3L) used peer editing to increase engagement. She explained,

Their peer is kind of like pointing out those misspelled words within their writing rather

than the teacher. So that can kind of peak interest. They also love looking at work other

than their own and editing it and telling us what’s wrong with it. So, they’re able to

sometimes see those misspelled words in their peers’ writing rather than their own

writing.

Sarah (WLE) plays games such as “guess the covered word.” She will put a word on the board

from their model text story she wants to highlight. Then, “like wheel of fortune, where like

you’re revealing parts of the word at a time, and then they have to really think about what makes

sense within the context, but they are hyper focused on a particular spelling pattern.” Thus, the

lessons were adjusted in both schools to help increase student engagement and interest.

Teacher training, experience, and pedagogy. One of the most coded sub-strands

throughout the data was teacher training, experience, and pedagogy (146 different references).

The higher the level of teacher autonomy, the more the teacher’s training and pedagogy was

displayed. If given a script, the teacher’s training and preferences may not be as illustrated

160

within a lesson. This was exemplified with Samantha. She previously worked at Jackson (while

they utilized Wonders) before switching to Washington. She recounted:

I like how the small group instruction was used [at Jackson]. I don’t like how it was

enforced. I like being able to differentiate the instruction. I did not like how I was not

able to make instructional decisions based on the needs of my students.

Conversely, Kathy (JLE) promoted teachers could take the lessons and apply their “own

technique . . . to teach the kids.” Therefore, teachers at Jackson may integrate some of their

personality and classroom management techniques, but the freedom to switch one activity for

another was not allowed. During observations, Joanna (JT4L) discussed several writing prompts

and activities she would prefer to use, but she was not allowed to make the switch.

In Washington, the teachers were expected to follow the curriculum’s framework and to

conference with each student. The individual instructional activities often relied upon the

teacher’s preferences and knowledge. Therefore, their pedagogical beliefs and teacher

preferences were easier to determine during observations. In the lessons observed with three of

the four teachers, the Smartboard was used to help facilitate the lesson; the other teacher liked to

have her students sit on rugs and listen to the story or instructions. The whole group mini-

lessons observed were different in each class and focused on skills the teachers believed the

students needed. While ARC had mini-lessons to coincide with Power Goals for the one-on-one

conference time, only one of the four teachers was observed using the lessons. The other three

teachers created lessons based on their knowledge, training, and past experiences.

Research Questions

The final section of Chapter Four returns once again to this study’s research questions.

The primary question was as follows: What internal and external factors shape the spelling

161

instructional practices of third and fourth grade teachers? Bandura’s (1986) triadic causation

model supports behavior (i.e., instructional choices) and is the result of personal, behavioral, and

environmental factors. Since people cannot be removed from their actions, behavioral and

environmental factors were divided into classroom specific influences (i.e., students) and school-

wide influences (e.g., curriculum administration, stakeholders, etc.). As the data was studied,

coded, and compiled into themes, in keeping with Bandura’s (1986) triadic causation model, the

sub-questions could not be discussed in isolation for they were a series of causes and effects. For

instance, a teacher may believe specific activities or instructional approaches are effective (SQ1),

but may not be allowed to utilize them due to regulations by the institution (SQ3). Therefore,

while the questions were individually answered, there were many areas of intersection between

the sub-questions.

To answer the questions, all data was categorized in NVivo as (a) teacher-personal, (b)

student-based environmental, and (c) institution-based environmental. Themes and thematic

models were reviewed from the previous reports in this chapter. Hence, there were areas of

overlap between the reports and the answers to the research questions. To explain how teachers,

students, and institutions affected lessons, the components of lessons themselves also needed to

be explained. Tomlinson (2017) proposed three ways to individualize lessons: by content (i.e.,

material taught), by process (i.e., method of delivery), and by activities. If considered inversely,

these components combine to create lessons and form the following formula: content + process +

activities = lesson. This formula was used in conjunction with factors (i.e., personal, student-

based environmental, and institution-based environmental) to answer how each personal or

environmental component influenced instruction.

162

Sub-Question 1 (SQ1). How are spelling instructional practices of third and fourth

grade teachers shaped by personal factors?

Personal factors of teachers will have varying effects upon the instructional practices.

For instance, teachers in public schools, such as Jackson, have limited teacher autonomy. The

content was pre-determined. As each classroom was not a carbon copy, however, teachers still

influenced instruction as they made small lesson adjustments. For instance, at Jackson during

observed lessons, Joanna worked for about five minutes to help create connections, while

Andrew spent about two minutes on connections and moved onto creating sentences with the

words. They both taught fourth grade, used the same words, taught syllable types, spent the

same time on ELA, and had the same SmartBoard presentations (with different fonts and

backgrounds), but the method with which they introduced the words helped reveal their point of

view.

In Washington, just as long as the curriculum’s framework was utilized, teachers had

freedom to differentiate process and activities between classes, which resulted in teachers’

pedagogical and content beliefs being more easily identified. For instance, Jasmine had students

sit on a rug and listen to a story for twenty minutes, and the students occasionally answered

verbal questions; while Samantha (who taught the same grade) had her activities on a

SmartBoard and frequently used cooperative groups. If spelling was an area of needed

instruction, small group instruction or mini-lessons may take place; thus, changing the content.

However, there were still parameters (SQ3) and adding traditional components of spelling would

not be allowed.

In Lincoln, without close oversight from the Department of Education, the teacher greatly

influenced the content, process, and activities. The curriculum needed to be approved by the

163

administration, but teachers had a significant say in what was used. Therefore, as the curriculum

was taught, the teachers used student progress and behavior (SQ2) to further adapt, reteach, or

adjust activities. If at the end of the year the content seemed to be in need of change, teachers

could talk with administration to propose adjustments for the following year. Aside from

teaching spelling and phonics rules being utilized in the curriculums, there were few similarities

between the classes.

Throughout the schools, two primary guiding influences of teacher instruction, if looking

solely at the teacher, was their (a) content knowledge of spelling and their (b) pedagogical

beliefs. Regardless of level of teacher autonomy, teacher beliefs and knowledge influenced

instruction. Some teachers, however, had a much higher level of instructional influence than

others. The following subsections further discusses teachers’ personal factors.

Teacher content knowledge. One consistent influence of teacher instruction was teacher

content knowledge. This knowledge, however, was also influenced by the curriculum the district

chose (SQ3). In the public schools, the curricular companies provided training to coincide with

their beliefs about spelling. In the private school, if further training was needed, the teachers

would either look it up online or ask the reading specialist. These underlying curricular beliefs

were visible within the teacher’s answers on Fresch’s (2003) survey. On the survey, the teachers

rated the statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The table below

includes several statements from the survey and the schools’ means.

164

Table 4

Mean Scores of Schools on Specific Questions from Fresch’s (2003) Survey

Formal spelling

instruction is needed to

ensure adequate

development of

spelling.

Spelling words should

come from students

own writing.

Assessment of students

writing is an effective

way to guide spelling

instruction.

Washington

2.88

4.33 4.5

Jackson

4.33 2.88 3.5

Lincoln 4.38 2.88 3.75

Washington’s curriculum (SQ3) upholds spelling is inherently learned in a language-rich

environment and spelling should come from student writing. Likewise, the educators within

Washington rated the effectiveness of these two activities higher than educators in other schools.

Jackson’s and Lincoln’s curriculum utilized direct instruction. Conversely, formal spelling

instruction was held in higher regard in schools with that type of curriculum. In Jackson and

Lincoln, nine out of ten educators also believed their curriculum was effective in teaching

spelling.

The participants in this study all had aspects of research-based spelling activities and

methodologies—the difference was the depth of understanding. For instance, Emma (LT3) had

an understanding of a multi-linguistic approach to spelling developed through her time as an ESL

student and through further reading as she taught herself the school’s curriculum. LeAnne (LT4)

used several less beneficial activities based in the traditional spelling approach (e.g., writing

words five times each for homework), but she also included research-based activities such as

explicit spelling and phonics instruction. Educators at Jackson understood the importance of

165

phonemes, phonics, and taught prefixes and suffixes (when the words they taught included them)

but etymological concepts were not discussed within interviews or during observations.

Washington educators had the greatest range of understanding between teachers, which

was congruent with the lack of spelling professional development. Within the surveys collected

from Washington educators, three of the four teachers recorded they spent zero minutes per week

on spelling. Jasmine (WT3N) wrote she spent thirty minutes on spelling. The discrepancy

between Jasmine and the other teachers may be understood if the meaning of spelling instruction

is investigated. Jessica (JLE) was interviewed as Jackson was transitioning from Wonders to

Bookworms. She articulated,

I almost think the word, ‘spelling’ is almost taboo; and I don't, I think, I want to say,

older people maybe, feel like, ‘Where is it? We should have it.’ The younger generation

feels like, ‘You know it's gone. We really don't need it.’ And I think it's just the word

spelling that causes a lot of agitation with people; rather than just getting down to basics

where this is a piece of learning to read, and this is a piece of learning to write. It's just

the word . . . even our teachers when we saw in our new curriculum, it was like, ‘OH,

spelling is back.’ Well, spelling never went . . . we still did word work.

The ambiguity of what constitutes spelling instruction was seen when three Washington

educators mentioned answering the interview questions was hard because they did not really

“teach spelling.” So, the question arises, “In the absence of a routine spelling curriculum, was

spelling instruction still taking place?” Akin to Jessica, this researcher proposes that yes, it was.

Daffern and Fleet (2021) stated that learning to spell “involves learning how phonological,

orthographic and morphological concepts can be combined to produce written words” (p. 68).

166

Spelling is merely the orthographical representation of sounds and word parts. Therefore, while

not labeled “spelling,” morphological activities with affixes and root meanings were completed.

Furthermore, Samantha and Ashley discussed using word sorts from Words their Way.

Dawn and Ashley also had students proofread peers’ work (whole group and individually) to

help with grammar and spelling. Teachers had seen students consistently improving on their

writing. With the lack of student data, however, it is unclear if their incidental spelling approach

with teacher-planned word study has the same level of effectiveness between rooms.

Pedagogical beliefs. During observations, the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were evident

to varying degrees. For instance, when discussing effective instruction, Ashley conveyed, “I’m

big on making connections, having kids make connections to information.” This was seen

throughout her observations. She frequently asked, “Hmmmm. Why?” or “Hmmm. What do

others think?” The tone in which she asked made it seem as if she was unsure and needed the

students to explain the material to her. In this way, she was trying to get the students to make

connections and think through the answers. In Jackson, Kayla identified student collaboration as

an effective strategy, but she expressed, “This curriculum we’ve really had to stick with it. So,

there’s not a whole lot of collaborating.”

The following table identifies activities or approaches teachers said were effective for all

subjects and spelling activities. Finally, the evidence (or lack thereof) of the activity being

integrated during observations is provided.

167

Table 5

Teachers’ Self-Identified Effective Activities and Classroom Evidence

Activities Identified as

Effective Instruction

for All Subjects

Activities

Identified as

Effective Spelling

Instruction

Evidence of Practice in

Classroom and

Washington

Teachers

Samantha 1. “Making

connections.”

2. “Having fun and

hands on, engaging . . .

opportunities for them

to kind of do rather

than listen is helpful.”

3. “Learning the

patterns is

helpful.”

1. During small group

conferencing, she had students

get books they were reading and

looked specifically for prefixes

and suffixes.

2. Students were raising hands

and participating during whole

group lessons and working on

their projects during independent

work.

3. During small groups,

discussed open and closed

syllables and prefixes/suffixes.

While these associated with

Power Goals (based in

curriculum), they were driven by

Samantha’s knowledge of

words.

Jasmine 1. “Whole brain

learning, and just like

consistent. Not drill

and kill, but more

exposure to ideas over

and over. For instance,

I love our math

curriculum.”

2. “Writing tricky

words. Seeing

more vocabulary

words at their

grade level.”

1. During observations, recalls

consistent with whole brain

learning were frequently utilized,

and the lessons were a consistent

format that built on the previous

day’s work.

2. This was not overtly observed.

The students wrote daily and

Jasmine looks at the spelling but

the focus is on ideas. Students

read daily during silent sustained

reading; so, they may (or may

not) see more vocabulary words

at their grade level.

Dawn 1. Information must be

“practiced. Reinforced

on an individual level.”

2. When the

“same common

spelling mistakes

[keep] happening,

whether it’s

1. Small group and individual

conferencing took place and

focused on individual reading

skills.

168

whole group,

multiple students

in a class, I like

kind of pointing

them out, just as

I’m conferencing

with them in

writing.”

2. Spelling and writing

instruction was not observed

during observations but Dawn’s

current ARC unit was focused

on literacy instead of research

(where most of the writing

conferences take place).

Ashley 1. “I’m big on making

connections, having

kids make connections

to information.”

2. “The revising

and editing that

we do in writing.”

1. Throughout the observations,

Ashley had students frequently

work together on an assignment

or discuss a prompt. One

activity had students walk to

different corners of the room

(each corner a possible setting of

the core text) and they had to

defend why their setting was

important to the story (i.e.,

making inferences based on their

own background knowledge and

what had been learned thus far).

2. At the beginning of one

observation, Ashley had a

sample of students work (from

another class) and had the

students critique it. Students

often pointed out spelling errors

within the model. Then during

their revising and editing,

students first looked at their own

papers and helped each other

with ideas and spelling.

Jackson

Teachers

Mary 1. “Some, rote

memorization works

best. I can speak it to

them, they see it, or

hear it, they’re done.

Some kids have to, like

I have to do it . . . it

depends on the kid and

the topic.”

2. “Breaking

down the words,

and the phoneme

and the sounds in

words.”

1. She taught to a variety of

learning modalities. For

instance, she modeled and gave

sentence prompts one day and on

a different day students worked

with partners to compose

sentences. Thus, they were

seeing, hearing, and working

with words on varying levels of

difficulty.

2. Each day had a spelling

portion where the word was

169

divided into syllables and the

phonemes were discussed. The

six syllable types were posted on

the wall.

Kayla 1. “I feel like they learn

best when they learn

off of each other. So . .

. that’s why I have

them do a lot of turn

and talking.”

2. “Definitely

breaking the word

into the syllable

type . . . I get

them into the

practice of putting

their hands under

their chin. So then

they’re able to

identify the

syllables in the

word. So then that

helps them be

able to break the

word up.”

1. She had students read the

story together in pairs; during

small groups students could ask

each other for help. However,

the cooperative work was limited

in keeping with the curriculum.

2. Each observation had a

spelling portion with the word

divided into syllables and

phonemes were discussed; the

students also put their hands

under their chins to determine

the syllables.

Joanna 1. “Activating the

background

knowledge. Giving

them the opportunity

and the time to do

that.”

2. “Making

connections to

words.”

Joanna conveyed the same ideas

for effective instruction for

spelling and in general.

Therefore, she had students

discuss the syllable types, but

she also had students making

sentences together and

connections to other words (e.g.,

slothfulness to other words with

the same suffixes)

Andrew

1. “I will also say,

"Apply it to you." So

they can apply it to

something that they’re

interested in. It seems

to go better.”

2. “I would say

definitely using

those words in a

sentence and

trying to use the

spoke.” [i.e., a

graphic organizer

with who, what,

when, where

why].

1. He had the students connect

the spelling words to their lives

(e.g., discussed the fury he saw

at baseball and football games).

2. He also had students working

on the super sentences during

each observation (in addition to

the syllable word with the

words).

Lincoln

Teachers

Emma 1. “So definitely hands-

on activities for them.”

2. “I like spelling

activities that are

more hands-on.”

The spelling activities observed

were interactive. One lesson

involved a choice board where

students could choose to form or

write words with pasta, shaving

170

cream, etc. Other lessons

involved watching a video and

writing the spelling words seen

in the video.

LeAnne 1. “Being actively

involved in the

learning. They have to

be able to touch it. I

would have to say like

play with it.”

2. “The word

shapes seem to

work well with

my students.”

Word shapes coincide with

being able to touch the words.

While it was not seen during the

observations, LeAnne reported

using them. During the lessons,

in addition to focusing on

spelling words with the schwa

sound, students completed

workbook sheets and built word

pyramids.

General aspects of the educators’ belief about effective instruction were typically visible

during the observations. For instance, if making connections was named as being important

when learning content, student collaboration and/or questions prompting schema activation were

observed. When discussing specific effective spelling instruction, Emma’s and Joanna’s answers

coincided with their belief about effective instruction for all subjects and could be seen during

the observations.

The other eight educators discussed specific spelling activities (e.g., word patterns,

writing tricky words, editing, super sentences, and word syllabication). In Washington, three of

the four teachers discussed spelling in terms of editing. As editing included a list of other skills,

spelling may be taught to varying degrees within the classrooms. At Jackson, three of the four

teachers named effective activities that coincided with their curriculum; thus, their beliefs easily

overlapped their instructional practice. Finally, LeAnne did not use word boxes while this

researcher was there but, as with all observations, the classes were only observed three times; it

could easily be incorporated other times. Therefore, the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs within this

study directly influenced their instruction. The specific activities believed to be research based

171

with spelling, however, may or may not have been observed as the curriculum helped to guide

the teachers in a specific way. The curriculum’s effect is discussed further in essential question

three.

Sub-Question 2 (SQ2). How are spelling instructional practices by third and fourth

grade teachers shaped by the classroom’s environmental and behavioral factors?

The classroom’s environmental and behavioral factors referred specifically to the effect

of student content knowledge and behavior upon spelling instruction. Teachers often tried to

increase student engagement through discussion and personal connections. However, Emma

(LT3) was the only educator to discuss student behavior influencing instruction. She used

behaviors to help group students during small group instruction. During all observations,

teachers utilized classroom management techniques (praising those showing correct behaviors,

positive reinforcement, reviewing expectations, etc.), but teachers did not change content nor

activities due to student behavior. Rather, there were slight modifications (e.g., helping students

make connections), which did not greatly change the lessons.

When discussing the most influential factors on spelling instruction, teachers (n = 10) and

literacy experts (n = 3) gave a variety of answers. Seven educators identified students’ reading

and writing abilities, student motivation, or student application as a primary influence upon their

spelling instruction. The remaining educators (n = 6) identified curriculum, teacher motivation,

and school/district expectations as the driving influence. Throughout all the interviews, student

was the fifth most stated word (after spelling, words, know, and think). Yet, if all the coded

strands were aggregated and placed under the major headings of institutional influences, students

influence, teacher influence, or other (this category was for off-topic statements), student

172

influence was coded the least (86 times) when compared with teacher factors (190) and

institutional factors (222).

Once again, if returning to the equation, content + process + activities = lesson, the

students may influence the method of delivery and the activities. The content, however, was

often driven by curriculum and standards. Thus, students may be the focus of the instruction and

lessons can be modified to increase student engagement or to meet the students’ needs. Student

knowledge, however, had a limited influence on the whole group content in spelling, especially

in the public-school setting. Conversely, Lincoln Preparatory, as a private school, showed higher

levels of individualization for spelling instruction during observations (and supported by

interviews). When looking at coded strands, 23% of coded strands at Lincoln focused on

students (compared to 13% at Jackson and 18% at Washington). Without pressure from DOE,

Lincoln had greater margin to focus on the students.

Within public schools, the curriculum (SQ#3), which is influenced by state standards and

the state test, and district expectations were more influential factors upon immediate instruction.

Students influenced curricular choices as weaknesses and strengths will show themselves on the

state test. This influence was evident when discussing curriculum change with the literacy

expert, Jessica, at Jackson. Instead of doing the standard pilot of three curriculums, Jessica

communicated, “We as a specialist team first went on EdReports and looked at what was out

there and what the reports were saying. We then contacted different school districts in our area

that had similar demographics to us.” The curriculum they chose was used in a district with

award-winning results on the state test. Therefore, the students’ test scores helped to guide the

curricular choices (SQ3), which in turn affected the amount of individualization within lessons.

173

The percentage of strands focusing on students at Jackson (13%) and Washington (18%)

is congruent with the differing levels of influence students had upon immediate spelling content

and lessons. Jackson teachers did not change spelling whole group lessons or spelling words (in

keeping with district expectations). Teachers assessed student reading and differentiated small

group decoding (per the curriculum), which would help improve spelling abilities. The

differentiation was largely curriculum-driven, not student-driven. Whereas spelling and

decoding lessons at Washington was a direct result of perceived student need. Yet, with the lack

of district focus (SQ#3) on spelling, teachers (SQ#1) may or may not have decided to use time to

teach spelling. Therefore, students’ content knowledge affected instruction at both schools, but

in differing ways. In one school, student content knowledge may have directly affected lesson

content, but only if teachers saw need and had the content knowledge. In the other school,

students did not affect whole group lessons and had small group instruction based on a

prescribed curriculum.

Sub-Question 3 (SQ3). How are spelling instructional practices of third and fourth

grade teachers shaped by the institution’s environmental and behavioral factors?

As revealed in the previous reports, institutional factors (e.g., DOE requirements,

curriculum, administration expectations) was the most coded component by educators in public

schools (Lincoln Preparatory had teacher factors as the most coded component). Percentages of

coded strands focusing on institutional factors were as follows: Jackson 49%, Washington 43%,

and Lincoln 38%. In all observations, the activities related to the curriculum and/or, in the case

of the public schools, state testing preparation.

As schools are institutions, the funding and accountability source influenced how they

function and their expectations for educators. As stated in Report Five, the Department of

174

Education influences districts. Within this study, Washington and Jackson were situated in

diverse districts and, as public schools, were accountable to the Department of Education. At

Washington, content during observations ensured skills from the state test were integrated into

classroom lessons. At Jackson, all educators discussed the importance of SBAC (Smarter

Balanced Assessment) and how they prepared students for the test. Noticeably, in both schools,

spelling was integrated into ELA. At Washington, the teachers needed to make a conscious

choice to include it. At Jackson, spelling was an explicit component of the ELA curriculum and

taught daily.

Conversely, the private school, Lincoln Preparatory, was accountable to the stakeholders

(parents, educators, students, and community members) and an accreditation agency. They did

not receive federal nor state funds and did not participate in a yearly high stakes assessment.

Their spelling was a separate subject as opposed to an integrated or implicit component of the

ELA curriculum. With parent expectations, as written by Katie (LP) in a follow-up email,

Lincoln tries to “keep things more traditional in the elementary grades.” She further explained,

One of our concerns with a traditional curriculum is that it might not go in depth in some

areas as we wish it would. For example, a lot of the reading curriculum for elementary

didn't go very deep into reading strategies, deeper level thinking, comprehension, etc but

was more surface level. We found that the Rooted in Reading curriculum did a nice job of

this, but as it's not a regular textbook, it had some parents concerned. However, the

teachers and students love it and feel it is meeting the needs of the kids much more. This

would be true of the spelling as well. Many parents are perfectly fine with their child

simply memorizing letter combinations to spell a word rather than having the deeper

understanding of WHY it phonetically does (or doesn't) make sense. When we switched

175

to the new spelling for a few grades last year, we had some parents who felt their children

(who were brighter) were getting a dumbed down list that was meant for those who

struggle with dyslexia. So, it's been a fine line and a dance to figure out.

The influence of parents and student growth instead of the government and state policies

(including the state test) resulted in Lincoln having the lowest percentage of institutional strands

(38%) and the highest percentage of student strands (23%). Attention educators in public school

settings gave to institutional factors (e.g., SBAC preparation and administration, curriculum

fidelity, etc.), Lincoln educators gave to students.

Throughout all institutional data, curriculum had the highest percentages from each site

(Washington: 22%, Jackson: 23%, Lincoln: 15%). Lessons resulted from the interactions

between educators, curriculum, and their environment. As Lincoln teachers had high teacher

autonomy and did not receive formal professional development with curriculum, the institutional

environment allowed them to deviate from or teach the curriculum with fidelity.

In Jackson and Washington, curriculum influenced teacher knowledge and school

expectation. The link between curriculum professional development and teacher beliefs was

discussed in research question one. However, school expectations were also influenced by

curriculum methodology. Previous to Bookworms, Jackson used Wonders. When asked about

administrative expectations with spelling, Jessica observed, “Prior to this coming year [with the

implementation of Bookworms], they did not [have expectations spelling would be taught]. It

was not a part of the curriculum. It was not a part of the discussion.” Likewise, a fourth grade

teacher at Washington, Ashley, conveyed, “With our district, we’re not having anything spelling

related that we’re scoring . . . that affects the influence and focus that we do have on our spelling

176

instruction.” Hence, in this study, districts aligned their expectations about spelling instruction

with the curriculum’s approach to spelling.

Finally, the type of curriculum implemented in Jackson and Washington also reflected

district beliefs and expectations. For instance, Bookworms is a scripted curriculum with scripted

interventions. Jackson teachers were expected to have a high level of curriculum fidelity. They

had lower levels of teacher autonomy, but they also had instructional literacy support in the form

of external reading coaches. The coaches provided model lessons, conducted professional

development, and were available for any questions. Conversely, at Washington, ARC was a

framework within which teachers worked but could adapt lessons to meet perceived needs of

students. Washington teachers had a higher level of instructional autonomy.

If returning to the lesson formula: content + process + activities = lesson, the institutional

factors greatly influenced instructional choices of teachers. The curriculum consistently

provided the lesson format upon which educators built the lesson. At Lincoln, teachers routinely

used their curriculum with fidelity, but they also greatly influenced curriculum selection. If they

did not like certain lessons or if specific students needed additional support, they could change

the content, process, and activities. Likewise, Washington educators could decide the content,

process, and activities for spelling. However, within their given context, spelling instruction was

not viewed as essential. Therefore, word work took place, but the main focus was reading and

writing. At Jackson, teacher instruction was a mirror of content, process, and activities as laid

out in the teacher’s guide. They may add a few thoughts to the process and students had varying

curriculum-based activities during small group, but their environment weighed heavily in their

planning process. Hence, whether direct or indirect, the institution had a profound influence

upon spelling instruction.

177

Central Research Question. What internal and external factors shape the spelling

instructional practices of third and fourth grade teachers?

In returning once again to the central research questions, a variety of findings and themes

emerged. As an embedded case study, first, sites were examined to determine their within-

school themes. Washington’s themes included (a) curriculum, (b) teacher content knowledge,

and (c) student factors. Jackson’s themes included (a) curriculum, (b) district expectations, and

(c) teacher content knowledge. Finally, Lincoln’s themes included (a) external accountability and

student influence, (b) teacher autonomy, and (c) curriculum.

As an explanatory case study, the data was then used to develop thematic models to

describe instructional choices of teachers in spelling. Lincoln, as a private school without state

or federal funds, had a different thematic model. The main components of teachers’ instructional

spelling choices at Lincoln included: (a) curriculum, which was influenced by administration,

parents, teachers, and finances, (b) student achievement and knowledge, (c) teacher knowledge,

pedagogy, and training, and (d) administrative expectations.

Within the public schools, one institutional factor included the Department of

Education’s (DOE) expectations and policies, which influenced and informed the complex

system from which instructional choices were made. Additional key components of institutional

influences for the public schools included: (a) district and principal expectations, (b) district

resources, (c) curricular choices, (d) student achievement on standardized assessments, (e)

student behavior and content knowledge, and (e) teacher training, experience, and pedagogy. At

Lincoln, the most coded strands of instructional influence were teacher personal factors (e.g.,

content knowledge and pedagogical beliefs). Educators at Lincoln did not have high stakes

accountability assessments. As a result, when compared with the public schools, they had a

178

greater student-focus. Furthermore, teachers helped choose the curriculum, supplemented

materials as needed, and had a relatively high level of teacher autonomy.

Conversely, the most coded strands at Washington and Jackson dealt with institutional

factors. The external source of accountability (DOE) and standards-based assessments

influenced both the form and content of lessons in the public schools. If spelling was an integral

part of the curriculum, professional development followed to teach the curriculum’s approach. If

spelling was not an integral part of the curriculum, professional development followed to teach

that approach. Therefore, teacher content knowledge typically aligned with curricular beliefs.

Varying levels of teacher autonomy resulted in educators having different levels of control over

spelling content, process, and activities. Yet, even in a setting with low teacher autonomy,

aspects of teacher preference or content knowledge were still visible.

Summary

To understand why instructional spelling choices were made, this researcher completed

a thorough and repeated analysis and triangulated data from interviews, observations, curriculum

reviews, follow-up emails, and Fresch’s (2003) survey. Hence, Chapter Four included case

descriptions of both the main units of analysis (i.e., schools) and subunits of analysis (i.e.,

teachers). Themes within schools included (with varying degrees of instructional influence in

schools) (a) curriculum, (b) teacher content knowledge, (c) student factors, (d) district

expectations, and (e) external accountability. Two thematic maps showcased influences of

instructional spelling choices of teachers in private and public schools and were discussed in the

previous section. Finally, the primary research question helped clarify the relationship between

instructional choices and teacher, student, and institutional factors. Specifically, sub-question

one highlighted the use of teacher content knowledge of pedagogy within spelling instruction.

179

Sub-question two revealed the difference in student-focus depending upon other institutional

factors (e.g., state assessments, teacher autonomy, etc.). Sub-question three supported

institutional factors as a primary influence of instructional choices, especially in the public

schools. Institutional factors included components such as curriculum, funding sources,

accountability assessments, and school and district expectations, which then guided district and

school expectations in regard to teacher autonomy. Thus, in keeping with Bandura’s (1986)

social cognitive theory, specifically his triadic reciprocal causation model, the instructional

choices of teachers were a complex system of choices that were informed by the teachers as they

interacted with students in their given contexts.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

Overview

The purpose of this explanatory multiple case study was to explain how internal and

external factors shape the instructional choices of third and fourth grade educators from

Delaware as they teach spelling. Chapter Five begins with a summary of those findings. The

findings are then placed and compared with published literatures and theories. Next,

implications are discussed, and delimitations and limitations are explored. Finally,

recommendations for future research are proposed.

Summary of Findings

Through purposeful sampling, three diverse sites (i.e., cases) were chosen to include in

the study. From the sites, a total of sixteen individuals (i.e., embedded units) participated,

including principals, literacy experts, and third and fourth grade teachers. Each participant

completed interviews and filled out Fresch’s (2003) spelling survey. Additionally, the English

language arts (ELA) curriculum from each school was evaluated, and each teacher’s spelling or

180

entire ELA block (if spelling was not explicitly taught) was observed. This researcher and a

second coder coded separately and then met to discuss codes until 100% coder agreement was

arrived upon. Using Braun & Clark’s (2006) thematic analysis steps, themes and thematic maps

were created from the codes. The findings supported spelling lessons as a multifaceted process,

in alignment with Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, with internal and external factors

working together to produce spelling instruction.

To help clarify the specific factors shaping instructional practices of third and fourth

grade students, the primary research question included internal factors (teacher-related issues)

and external (behavioral and environmental) factors. The sub-questions, then focused on each

specific thread. To begin, sub-question one asked: How are spelling instructional practices of

third and fourth grade teachers shaped by personal factors? Content knowledge and pedagogical

beliefs influence how teachers decide to provide spelling instruction. The educators’ beliefs

about effective spelling instruction varied between schools but often coincided with the

curriculum’s beliefs. Therefore, fourteen of sixteen of the educators believed their approach to

spelling was effective.

In Washington, five out of six educators adhered and believed in an incidental spelling

approach. The sixth Washington educator, Jasmine, believed in a more traditional spelling

curriculum with a weekly list, which is how she learned to spell when in school. In keeping with

their curriculum and training, Jackson educators taught spelling with “super sentences” and

syllable types. Five out of six stated it was effective. When asked about the curriculum’s

effectiveness for spelling, Joanna (JT4L) posited, “I don’t feel like I can answer that question

yet, because we’ve only had it for one year.” The educators (n = 4) at Lincoln Preparatory used

different curriculums, but all agreed with their spelling effectiveness. Third grade utilized an

181

Orton Gillingham approach. The third grade teacher was not trained in Orton Gillingham; so,

she developed an understanding of the method using the internet and asking the reading

specialist. The fourth grade teacher used ACSI Spelling. During the 2019-2020 school year, she

also worked with the reading specialist to provide modified spelling instruction using sight

words for struggling spellers. Previously, as needed, she used Sitton Spelling for struggling

spellers, a program for which she had previously received training.

Teacher autonomy influenced the extent to which the teacher’s pedagogical beliefs and

beliefs about effective spelling instruction were visible within classrooms. One site, Jackson

Elementary, expected a high level of fidelity to the curriculum. Lessons between classrooms

were similar with related Smartboard presentations and independent work for students. The

other two sites had higher degrees of teacher instructional autonomy; therefore, in Lincoln and

Washington, spelling instruction varied between rooms depending on curriculum and concepts

teachers believed to be important.

The next sub-question (SQ2) focused on the influence of individual classrooms (i.e.,

students) upon spelling instruction. Akin to SQ1, teacher autonomy and curriculum acted as

types of moderators. At Jackson Elementary, student ability and behavior had an indirect effect

upon instruction (i.e., their test scores and achievement influenced the curriculum), but spelling

instruction was not individualized or modified due to student ability. Rather, the lessons were

curriculum driven. At Lincoln, struggling readers and spellers received individualized lessons

(often with the reading specialist) or modified lists and activities.

At Washington, individualized instruction may take place during writing conferences, but

with other priorities, in keeping with previous research on incidental spelling (Westwood, 2005),

instruction may or may not happen. Most spelling instruction that occurred during observations

182

took the form of word work, which teachers included per their own discretion. As in Jackson,

collectively, students influenced schools through testing results (e.g., state test or other formal

assessments), which influenced curriculum. Overall, individual students only influenced lessons

if the teachers (a) had some level of teacher autonomy and (b) had the knowledge of perceived

effective spelling instruction and/or (c) had another school personnel to pull the student for

individualized instruction.

The final sub-question (SQ3) asked the following: How are spelling instructional

practices of third and fourth grade teachers shaped by the institution’s environmental and

behavioral factors? A wide array of factors had a direct and indirect influence upon daily

instruction and changed according to the funding source. Within the private school, Lincoln,

organizational influences included curriculum, finances (for curriculum), and parent and

administrative expectations. As the source of funds, parents had a greater voice in instruction

than in the public schools. Curriculum was a key source of influence on lessons, and teachers

had a say in which curriculum was utilized. In the public schools, organizational influence was

the most coded strand, and the influences included the following: the Department of Education

(including tests and standards), district resources, district office, administrative expectations, and

curricular choices.

In all schools, curriculum and teacher autonomy daily influenced instruction. The

curriculum gave the basic lesson structure, and the school helped support the teacher’s

knowledge of spelling during curriculum training. The level of teacher instructional autonomy

helped determine how closely the teacher must stick with lessons as provided within the

curriculum. Thus, in schools with lower levels of teacher instructional freedom, the institutional

factors had a higher level of influence upon daily instruction in spelling.

183

Discussion

Case studies help support real world perspectives to be thematically analyzed and

explained (Yin, 2018). The data from this explanatory case study supported two thematic

models explaining influences upon teacher instruction within the classroom. In keeping with

Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory, instructional choices (i.e., behavior) was the result of

interactions between individuals, behaviors, and environmental factors. This study also supports

and expands published literature in the following areas: (a) influence of teacher content

knowledge and pedagogy upon spelling instruction, (b) influence of students upon spelling

instruction, and (c) influence of institutional factors upon spelling instruction.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

The instructional choices of teachers are not solely decided upon by their innate choices.

Likewise, the students are not the sole driver of instruction nor are the teachers mere robots

driven by the institutional settings. Rather, an interaction of all factors, including students,

teachers, environment, and content, combine to create instructional choices (Cohen, Raudenbush,

& Ball, 2003). In each observation, there were times where students, teachers, and the school

environment individually influenced the lesson and times when all factors melded together to

create learning. For as Bandura (1986) stated,

Triadic factors do not operate in the manner of a simultaneous wholistic interaction.

Reciprocality does not mean simultaneity of influence. Although each of the segments of

reciprocality involve bidirectional influence processes, the mutual influences and their

reciprocal effects do not spring forth all at the same instant. (p. 25)

At times, using their training and understanding of spelling content, teachers would take the

curriculum (environmental influence) and adapt it (personal influence) because a student was

184

struggling to understand (behavioral influence). If the institution did not allow deviation from

curriculum, the environmental influence dampened the influence of personal and behavioral

influences from both the teacher and the students.

Furthermore, if an educational institution has a different funding source, then the

environment changes drastically. For instance, without high stakes assessments to ensure

adherence to a specific set of state standards, stakeholders had a greater effect upon the

environment itself. Within this study, Lincoln teachers were the driving force behind specific

curriculums being chosen and school policies being put into place. Stakeholders (including

parents and students) had a concrete influence upon the institution itself. Bandura (1986) framed

this concept as follows:

Behavior partly determines which of the many potential environmental influences will

come into play and what forms they will take; environmental influences, in turn partly

determine which forms of behavior are developed. In this two-way influence process, the

environment is influenceable, as is the behavior it affects. (p. 29)

Void of close oversight of the Department of Education, daily teacher instruction at Lincoln was

a result of interactions between the teacher (i.e., their knowledge, training, and pedagogy), the

students (and previous student achievement), and environmental influence. The environmental

influence, however, dealt mostly with the curriculum, general administrative expectations, and

(perhaps) parent expectations.

Within the public schools, educators influenced the school environment, but since they

have a limited influence on federal and state regulations, they functioned within a more confined

institutional setting. Regulations and government mandates figuratively constructed a

framework for schools upon which the environment was then built. The districts in this study

185

took those frameworks and developed their school environments. In this study, Jackson was

situated in a district with a higher degree of expected instructional uniformity, and Washington

was in a district with a higher degree of teacher autonomy. Then, as agents within those

institutions, the teachers provided their instruction. The following sections continue to elaborate

upon the specific influences and how they interact to guide spelling lessons.

Personal (Teacher) Influence

Researchers have continually supported the impact of teacher knowledge upon student

learning (e.g., Binks-Cantrell et. al., 2012; Callingham, Carmichael, & Watson, 2016; Puliatte &

Ehri, 2018). Within this study, pedagogical beliefs of educators had degrees of variance, but

many of them supported similar thoughts. For instance, the following were the most discussed

activities believed to be effective by the reading experts and teachers: making connections (n =

5), hands-on activities (n = 4), and actively involving students so they can apply or discuss

concepts (n = 4). However, teacher autonomy acted as a type of moderator, which determined if

the content or activities in the curriculum could be adapted or modified (teacher autonomy is

further discussed below in the environmental section). Therefore in this section, two aspects of

personal influence are discussed: (a) teacher beliefs about effective spelling, and (b) teacher’s

instructional approaches and alignment with research.

In the two schools with formal spelling lessons (i.e., Jackson and Lincoln), literacy

experts (n = 2) and teachers (n = 6) stated they went to a variety of sources when they needed

more information on spelling content or their curriculum’s approach to spelling. Specifically,

they revealed they (a) taught themselves the content using the internet (n = 2), (b) participated in

professional development (n = 7), and/or (c) asked a school or outside reading specialist (n = 7).

Within Jackson, all educators (n = 6) discussed the six syllable types, phonemes, and word parts.

186

While syllable types has limited research on its effect on spelling, understanding phonemes and

word parts (i.e., morphology) is supported by published spelling literature (Daffern & Critten,

2019; Daffern & McKenzie, 2019; Treiman, 2018). Additionally, Jackson had access to an

outside source of reading coaches who were associated with a research university; reading

coaches have been linked with improved teacher literacy practices and increased student learning

(Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2011; Weiser et al., 2019). The training, in conjunction with support,

resulted in teachers feeling confident with their spelling instruction.

At Lincoln, Emma (LT3) used lessons based on the Orton-Gillingham approach; Orton-

Gillingham has research-based practices such as teaching phonics and phonemic awareness

(Nicholson, 2011), and initial research has linked it with improved student learning (Lim & Oei,

2015). LeAnne (LT4) focused on spelling rules with a modified traditional approach. She daily

used workbook worksheets, and during the interview she discussed teaching suffixes (i.e.,

morphology) and spelling rules. She also individualized instruction for students as needed.

Therefore, while the spelling was still separate from writing and reading, her individual activities

(e.g., morphology, phonics, and explicit spelling instruction on rules) had research behind their

usage (Graham & Santangelo, 2014).

At Washington Elementary, spelling instruction was more ambiguous, for it was not an

explicit component of the curriculum. So, the question arises, “In the absence of a routine

spelling curriculum, was spelling instruction still taking place?” Daffern and Fleet (2021) stated

learning to spell “involves learning how phonological, orthographic and morphological concepts

can be combined to produce written words” (p. 68). Spelling is merely the orthographical

representation of sounds and word parts. All teachers incorporated types of word work, either

whole group or individually. The word work that was seen taking place within the classroom

187

would fit the criteria of spelling instruction. Furthermore, the word work often focused on

morphological components (prefixes and suffixes) and affix meanings, which are practices

supported by research (Anastasiou & Griva, 2012; Bowers & Bowers, 2018; Levesque,

Breadmore, & Deacon, 2021).

In most Washington observations, activities and mini-lessons utilized for word work were

based upon teachers’ perceptions of student weaknesses (via formative and summative

assessments). This understanding of student need is the first step towards effective spelling

instruction (Daffern & Critten, 2019). Yet, most Washington educators had limited or no

training in linguistics or methods for teaching spelling. Samantha (WT3L) learned syllable types

while working at Jackson and incorporated that word knowledge (along with affixes) into her

individualized small group instruction. Jasmine (WT3N) believed students needed to understand

prefixes and suffixes going into fourth grade; therefore, she included mini-lessons with

morphological work (i.e., worksheets from Teacher’s Pay Teachers). Samantha, Sarah (WLE),

and Ashley (WT4L) had a graduate course in Words their Way, and both Samantha and Ashley

mentioned they may use it for struggling writers and readers. Ashley and Dawn (WT4N) used

quick warm-ups to discuss grammar and spelling of various sight words and homophones; Dawn

and Ashley also had their students proofread student work in whole group.

Thus, without formal schoolwide professional development, word work and spelling

activities varied greatly from class to class in alignment with teacher beliefs. In keeping with

previous research (e.g., Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012), in the absence of high quality

supplemental or curricular materials, instructional spelling activities varied greatly in quality.

Yet, with the exception of Jasmine, who believed a formal spelling list should be used,

Washington educators believed their school’s approach to spelling was successful. Students will

188

often improve in spelling as they improve in reading (Treiman, 2018); however, student spelling

will make greater gains with explicit spelling instruction (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). As data

was not collected from students, it is unknown if the word work activities were explicit or

structured enough to increase spelling gains in all classrooms.

Behavioral and Environmental Influence of Students

In all settings, educators wanted students to be engaged and learning. Therefore, some

teachers told brief stories; others used manipulatives or led student discussions. These activities

were underlined more by methodological beliefs (i.e., teacher beliefs about effective instruction)

than in response to student orthographical knowledge. Consequently, to understand the effect of

students upon spelling instruction, this researcher reflected how teachers (a) utilized formative

assessments and (b) provided individualized and whole group instruction. These two

components were studied because formative assessments highlighted students’ strengths and

weaknesses, allowing teachers to modify and adapt instruction. Conversely, educators could use

a variety of criteria when planning individualized and whole group instruction.

Formative assessments. Formative assessments, as opposed to summative assessments,

are activities (e.g., class worksheets, discussion answers, responses to exit tickets, etc.) used to

gauge student understanding to plan future lessons. In literacy, the use of formative assessments

has a positive effect size (d = .34) upon student learning (Lee, Chung, Zhang, Abedi, &

Warschauer, 2020). Within this study, the teachers used formative assessments to different ends.

At Lincoln, formative assessments included daily spelling work and a weekly pre-test. These

assessments, in conjunction with grades, were used to determine if students needed (a) additional

small group or individualized help or (b) modified spelling lists. Therefore, while whole group

instruction did not change, student work and answers may lead to adjusted activities.

189

At Jackson, formative spelling assessments were used to ensure students made

connections and understood the meanings of words. Therefore, formative assessments may have

included students making sentences with a spelling word; if they could not, the definition would

be further discussed. However, neither the content nor the independent work would change.

Whereas at Washington, formative assessments were used for reading and writing (e.g., answers

on white boards, discussions with partners, answers on worksheets, etc.). At Washington,

formative assessments in reading or writing resulted in lesson adaptations (e.g., reteaching or

stopping mid-lesson to review a concept) but the only type of formative spelling assessment was

during writing. Since spelling was not a district expectation, spelling instruction may not follow.

Individualized and whole group instruction. Individualized and student-centered

instruction, in which instruction is tailored to the students’ needs and interests, has consistently

been supported as best practice (Bernard et al., 2019; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). However, in a

test-driven era, individualized or adapted instruction might be waylaid due to pressure from the

state test and scripted curriculum (Milosovic, 2007; Neumann, 2016). In America, state tests are

often utilized to rank and hold teachers and schools accountable (De La Rosa, 2018). This high-

stakes accountability often results in increased prioritization of tested material and narrowing of

curriculum (Learned et al., 2020; Minarechová, 2012; Rooney, 2015; Saeki et al., 2015; von der

Embse et al., 2017). With the narrowing of curriculum and increase of teacher accountability,

teacher beliefs may not be in coherence with what they believe is best for the students (Learned

et al., 2020; Rooney, 2015).

In keeping with our current era of standards-based assessments, the students’ effect upon

spelling varied according to the setting. At Lincoln, without the pressure of the state test, the

teachers adhered to a more traditional spelling format, with a separate spelling report card grade

190

and a weekly spelling test. High achieving spellers did not have individualized lessons, but as

previously mentioned, struggling spellers and readers received modified instruction. Hence,

student knowledge may have a direct effect upon their instruction.

Conversely, in the two public schools, spelling was integrated into the ELA curriculum,

and students had a limited influence on spelling instruction. At Jackson, students received

research-based literacy instruction, but as lessons were not allowed to be modified, students

could not influence the spelling content. At Washington, teachers implemented word work as

needed and stated they may focus on spelling during editing. With all the skills to cover,

however, spelling could easily be overlooked. Hence, Washington students may influence

spelling instruction, but it was dependent upon the teacher’s spelling content knowledge and

belief in prioritization.

Behavioral and Environmental Influence of the Institution

As agents within educational institutions, outside factors greatly influence instructional

choices of teachers. These findings are in keeping with previous literature supporting the

influence of curriculum and environment upon instruction (e.g., Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball,

2003; Davis, Palincsar, Smith, Arias, & Kademian, 2017; Remillard, 2005). Within this study,

the following features were institutional influences on spelling lessons: (a) curriculum, (b) state

and federal guidelines, and (c) district and school expectations.

Curriculum. Each school had a theme of curriculum. In the words of Charalambous and

Hill (2012), curriculum or curricular materials refer to “artifacts such as student textbooks,

teacher guides, lesson plans, and instructional materials kits that, by communicating ideas and

practices, can shape classroom activity” (p. 444). Curriculum is a central aspect within daily

instruction and provides guidance on which content to include (Alvunger, 2018; Charalambous

191

& Hill, 2012; Moore, Coldwell, & Perry, 2021). According to Chingos and Whitehurst (2012),

“There is strong evidence that the choice of instructional materials has large effects on student

learning—effects that rival in size those that are associated with differences in teacher

effectiveness” (p. 4). In the absence of quality materials, teachers will find student activities that

may be of lower quality (Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012). Moreover, supplemental educative

curricular materials increase teacher content and pedagogical knowledge (Cervetti, Kulikowich,

& Bravo, 2015; Collopy, 2003; Davis et al., 2017; Hill & Charalambous, 2012).

Professional development in conjunction with curriculum implementation increases the

likelihood of curriculum fidelity (Bradfield & Exley, 2020). Thus, in Washington and Jackson,

professional development accompanied the implementation of the ELA curriculum, which

fostered specific ideas and beliefs about spelling acquisition and best practices. In Washington,

five out of six educators believed an incidental approach to spelling was effective (in keeping

with their curriculum). At Jackson, five out six participants believed their curriculum was

effective, and all the teachers explicitly taught a list of words weekly using syllables and “super

sentences.”

Conversely, at Lincoln, the spelling curriculum changed between grades and was heavily

influenced by teacher beliefs and experiences. Therefore, Lincoln teachers individually sought

formal and informal professional development to improve their spelling instruction and

implementation of their curriculum. The third grade teacher, Emma, used the curriculum and

taught herself the materials via the internet and discussions with the reading specialist. The

fourth grade teacher, LeAnne, used the curriculum and supplemented with other concepts she

had learned at various trainings.

192

The curricular approach at the schools had various levels of curriculum fidelity. At

Jackson, the curriculum was more of a rod in the spine—deviations were not allowed, but

numerous supports were given to aid in research-based spelling instruction (e.g., outside reading

specialists, daily SmartBoard presentations, scripted plans, professional development, etc.). At

Washington, the ELA curriculum was more of a backbone with vertebras, anchored in literacy

standards and a belief in student individualization, but spelling “discs” were only included if

teachers believed it was necessary and found time in which to insert it. At Lincoln, the

curriculum was akin to a cartilaginous spine, allowing for high degrees of flexibility and

anchored by weekly spelling grades, student writing samples, and internal student achievement

assessments (e.g., Words their Way Primary Spelling Inventory).

The curriculum each school utilized was vastly different, but fourteen out of sixteen

educators believed their curriculum was effective when teaching spelling. When discussing

curriculum implementation, Moore et al. (2021) proposed a theoretical model tracing the

following steps: (a) curriculum training and resources are provided to teachers, (b) curriculum is

utilized in the classroom, (c) student achievement takes place, (d) teachers value and then share

curriculum materials with others, and (e) materials continue to be used. Therefore, in this study,

even though different approaches were used to teach spelling, educators most likely experienced

student achievement, which lead to a belief in the effectiveness of their school curriculum or

program.

Federal and state policies and regulations. Since the mid-1980s, standards-based

accountability has increasingly driven federal and state educational policies (Cohen, Moffitt, &

Goldin, 2007; Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan, 2012). While policy does not guarantee instructional

change within classrooms (Cohen et al., 2007; Ryve & Hemmi, 2019), with the passing of No

193

Child Left Behind (2001) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), ratings and funds for school

districts have accompanied accountability assessments, giving the Department of Education

“unprecedented influence over what happens in classrooms” (Schneider & Saultz, 2020, p. 420).

High stakes testing, a now prominent feature within American public schools, has been

associated with a number of negative consequences; including, but not limited to, increased

teacher and student stress, narrowing of curriculum, and teaching to the test (Berliner, 2011;

Christenson et al., 2007; Jennings & Bearak, 2014; Saeki, Segool, Pendergast, & Embse, 2018).

Within the context of this study, one school is an example of how educators teach

spelling when in the absence of high stakes testing. As LeAnne (LT4) expressed, “I do not keep

up with state standards because I knew that they had gotten rid of spelling, and they are just

bringing it back again.” Lincoln Preparatory School had always included spelling as a separate

grade on the report card. Changes within standards and accountability assessments are

inconsequential. Lincoln’s funding source included donors and parents, and top-down policy

changes from politicians do not cause a shift within curriculum or methodology. No time

throughout the year is used for standardized test preparation. While changes may be made due to

other environmental causes, such as perceived student needs, Lincoln poises as a non-example

against the examples of Washington and Jackson who are influenced by governmental policies.

Published literature has continually supported a narrowing of the curriculum as a side

effect of high stakes testing (Berliner, 2011; Leraned et al., 2020; Rooney, 2015). Instructional

time within the classroom is finite and components on the state test with greater weights will

receive more instructional time (Jennings & Bearak, 2014). Lincoln educators have the

instructional autonomy and the instructional time to teach spelling individually, or they can

choose to integrate it into their reading block. Jackson utilized a curriculum that integrated

194

spelling into their English language arts lessons, and Washington’s ELA curriculum embedded

spelling into writing (e.g., spelling may be a component on a writing rubric or word work and

morphological parts may be suggested for individualized instruction). As reading and writing

are foundational components on the state test, this choice makes sense. Bookworms approaches

spelling words with a word work mentality. Thus, spelling words are also vocabulary words

broken into syllable types. Teaching students syllable types helps strengthen their ability to read

multi-syllabic words (Bhattacharya, 2020; Kearns & Whaley, 2019). Washington teachers also

incorporated word work activities to strengthen student decoding. Spelling instruction was also

supposed to take place during editing, but as conveyed by Ashley (WT4L), “I wouldn’t say

there’s a huge approach to it in the classroom when we’re . . . editing writing and those kinds of

things.”

During pre- and post-Common Core implementation, Jackson and Washington had

inverse reactions to spelling instruction. During years of the Delaware State Standards and the

Delaware state test, Washington explicitly taught and graded spelling using Sitton Spelling, while

Jackson solely incorporated small group word work. Then at Washington, with the

implementation of the American Reading Company, formal spelling instruction was no longer

allowed to take place, though word work was often incorporated (per teacher discretion). In

Jackson, with the Common Core adoption, Wonders was bought, and while a spelling component

was in the program, Jackson teachers were expected to use the spelling lists solely as a means for

vocabulary instruction. As they adopted Bookworms, they returned to formalized, structured

instruction teaching multi-syllabic spelling words.

The two divergent paths of districts may seem confusing but is concurrent with published

literature. However, once again, the inner-connectiveness within Bandura’s (1986) triadic

195

reciprocal causation model is illustrated as the individual districts and schools cannot be

removed from the environment of political policies. Accountability to the Department of

Education in conjunction with administrative beliefs and student demographics guided districts

towards separate routes of teacher autonomy and student learning, which will be explained in

greater detail in the following section.

District/administrative expectations. Within this study, the districts and schools greatly

influenced the instructional spelling choices of teachers. Specifically, the curriculum they chose

aligned with the level of teacher autonomy they afforded teachers. Teacher autonomy is, as

stated by Erss (2018), “self-directed decision-making” in which educators have the “capacity for

autonomous actions and freedom from control” (p. 244). Pearson and Hall (1993) divided

teacher autonomy into general teaching and curriculum autonomy. General teaching autonomy

includes control of classroom-specific domains such as behavior management systems, student

schedules, and types of learning activities (Pearson & Hall, 1993). Curriculum autonomy

includes lesson content choice, material utilization, and format of lesson (Pearson & Hall, 1993).

With the passing of No Child Left Behind (2001), scripted curriculum began to rise to

popularity as calls for systemic and explicit instruction in literacy was identified as best practice

(Milosovic, 2007). The usage of scripts became more prevalent within districts with higher

percentages of students from minority and poverty backgrounds (Ede, 2006), for Title 1 funds

were tied to using scientifically based curriculums (Griffith, 2008). Scripted curriculums have

resulted in teachers experiencing conflict between their beliefs about effective instruction and

program fidelity (Carl, 2014; Griffith, 2008, Milosovic, 2007). Hill and Charalambous (2012)

completed a cross-case analysis study of nine teachers. Three teachers provided high quality

instruction, two teachers had stronger lesson components, but may have had errors, and four

196

teachers had problematic explanations (Hill & Charalambous, 2012). The stronger teachers

consistently provided high quality instruction; however, for teachers with weaker instructional

practices, high levels of curriculum fidelity with extra support resulted in higher levels of teacher

instruction (Hill & Charalambous, 2012). While scripted lessons are not the primary focus of

this study, understanding Hill and Charalambous’ (2012) study lends support to districts’ choices

of scripts over higher levels of teacher autonomy.

Over the past twenty years, there has been a consistent decrease in teacher autonomy

(Lundstrom, 2015; Sparks & Malkus, 2012). Negative consequences of lower levels of teacher

autonomy include higher levels of teacher attrition (Ingersoll & May, 2012) and teachers feeling

a lack of trust and a sense of de-professionalization as they enact the policies (Biesta, 2015;

Lundstrom, 2015; Olsen & Sexton, 2009). Hong and Hamot (2020) surveyed high school social

studies teachers (N = 6,702) from forty-four states. They found teachers often had lower levels

of teacher autonomy if they worked in schools with any of the following characteristics: (a)

higher percentages of low income and high minority student bodies, (b) statewide assessments,

and (c) underperforming results on the state test (Hong & Hamot, 2020).

In this study, Washington resided in an affluent district with the majority of students

being Caucasian, whereas Jackson had a high population of students from minority and low

socio-economic backgrounds. Akin to Hong and Hamot’s (2020) study, Jackson teachers had

low levels of curriculum autonomy (i.e., scripted curriculum, identical lesson plans, etc.) and

classroom autonomy (i.e., school-wide behavior management systems, dictated daily schedules,

etc.). Conversely, Washington consistently did well on the state test and between 70-80% of

their teachers had graduate degrees (compared to 40-50% at Jackson). In keeping with Hong and

Hamot’s (2020) study, Washington teachers had a higher amount of classroom autonomy (they

197

could create their classroom schedules and had individual behavioral management systems) and

curriculum autonomy (they used the curriculum as a base, but adapted, added to, or deleted

content as perceived needs arose). In contrast, Lincoln Preparatory was free from most federal

and state regulations, with no students receiving free or reduced lunch. Hence, their educators

had high degrees of both curriculum and general teaching autonomy. The teachers created the

students’ daily schedules, individually paced their spelling units, created their own behavior

management systems, and formated their lessons in keeping with their beliefs and curricular

teachers’ guides.

Thus, returning to what school autonomy means upon spelling instruction, at Lincoln,

educators could change and adapt spelling within wide boundaries. For instance, they could

adapt lessons and include a variety of non-curriculum-based spelling activities; they could also

choose to only use a small amount of time in spelling or integrate it with reading. However, to

completely change the curriculum or to do away with spelling altogether, they would need to

work with the administration and (possibly) parents.

At Washington, the boundaries were a bit more confining and defined. Their students all

went through a “gate” called, “Smarter Balanced Test,” measuring if what was happening in the

“field” (i.e., classroom) was effective. If teachers decided to include or exclude spelling, both

choices were allowed because spelling was secondary to reading and writing. Thus, they may

have incorporated word work and briefly discussed spelling during the editing process. Finally,

at Jackson, the teachers and students were lead through a very defined gated path towards

learning. There was a test at the end, which ensured students learned the necessary skills. The

teachers and students all encountered the same tasks along the way, and all students were

198

expected to achieve specific markers. Their defined spelling path included a weekly list, syllable

types, and “super sentences.”

Implications

Understanding the influences behind spelling instruction is critical if spelling instruction

is to be improved upon. Within this study, in keeping with Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal

causation model, this researcher found a complex relationship between instructional practices

and interactions between the environment, behaviors, and personal factors, which is discussed in

the theoretical section. Empirically, this study expands upon current research as it highlights

factors researchers often look at in isolation, but not particularly as a piece of the whole

framework (e.g., state testing consequences, curriculum implementation, professional

development, etc.). Finally, as improved spelling instruction is ultimately the goal, practical

considerations are discussed.

Theoretical

Teacher instruction is a series of multifaceted decisions and influences (Neumann, 2016).

If returning to the modified model of Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal causation model

presented in Chapter Two, the interactions would look like the following:

199

Figure 6

Model of Influencers of Instructional Practices.

Figure six is slightly modified from Chapter Two. The basic framework is similar, but the

specific components within each category align with findings presented in the thematic maps

from Chapter Four. The etcetera acts as a placeholder for additional components present in one

or two participants, but whose presence was not large enough to be included (e.g., teacher self-

efficacy).

Teacher content and pedagogical knowledge influences instruction as it interacts with

curriculum (i.e., institutional factor) within the educators’ given context (Charalambous & Hill,

2012; Remillard, 2005). If Bandura’s triadic reciprocal causation model was applied to

individual districts, interactions between personal (district office personnel), environmental (state

policies, the state test, DOE), and behavioral (behaviors of educators, stakeholders, members of

DOE, etc.) would combine to influence district policy (behavior).

Personal Factors

(Content Knowledge,

Pedagogical Knowledge,

Teacher Training, etc.)

Environmental and

Behavioral Factors:

School-Specific

(Curriculum, National and State

Policies, Funding Source,

District Expectations, Teacher

Autonomy, etc.)

Environmental and

Behavioral Factors:

Classroom-Specific

(Student Knowledge,

Student Achievement, etc.)

200

Previous research has supported the importance and relatedness of the “personal”

component (e.g., teacher knowledge and pedagogy) with spelling instruction (Binks-Cantrell et

al., 2012; Puliatte & Ehri, 2018). Within this study, as curriculum is considered an

environmental influence, environmental influences were a major component of the instructional

decision-making process. Hence, instructional choices of educators in the private school were

made from a different set of interactions than those in public schools. Specifically, the

environmental factor of the Department of Education’s policy and requirements were very

influential on the public-school policies and curricular choices.

In the private school, the absence of DOE test accountability meant stakeholders (i.e.,

parents, educators, and students) had a direct effect on the content and curriculum for spelling

instruction and struggling spellers had individualized instruction and revised lists. In public

schools, environmental pressures varied in accordance with state test results and district office

personnel beliefs. Teacher autonomy, curriculum, and district policy within the public schools

greatly influenced spelling instruction. Furthermore, since districts decide topics for professional

development, teacher content knowledge was influenced by the district in which they worked.

Empirical Implications

This study extends empirical knowledge by specifically seeking to understand how

various internal and external factors influence spelling instruction. Remillard (2005) proposed

curriculum enactment (lesson instruction) was the result of a participatory relationship between

the teacher and the curriculum, with context having an influence. Within this study, instead of

context being a small background component, the teacher’s context was incredibly influential.

Context (i.e., environment) guided curriculum choice and instruction. For example, state test

scores and district beliefs led districts towards specific curriculums (Hong & Hamot, 2020),

201

district policy could result in varying levels of teacher autonomy, and curriculums provided

trainings influencing teacher beliefs.

Researchers have suggested teachers may lack an understanding of research-based

spelling practices and spelling content knowledge (Adoniou, 2014; Daffern & Fleet, 2021;

Daffern & Mackenzie, 2019; McNeill & Kirk, 2014; Moats, 2014). A variety of activities seen

during observations and discussed during interviews were supported by research, such as word

boxes (Alber-Morgan, et al., 2016; Keesey et al., 2015; Ross & Joseph, 2019), word sorts (Bear

et al., 2012; Bear & Templeton, 1998; Harris et al., 2017; Rasinski, Rupley & Nichols, 2008;

Wolter & Green, 2013), and morphological and phonological activities (Daffern, 2015; Daffern

& Critten, 2019; Masterson & Apel, 2010; Wolter, & Gillon, 2017). However, there is a

difference between research-based activities and a research-based methodological approach. In

this study, research-based spelling methodologies in curriculum promoted research-based

spelling instruction and practices. If the ELA or spelling curriculum was not as research-based

then, (a) spelling practices were not as effective as they could be or (b) the teacher had training

and included supplemental activities to increase effectiveness of lessons.

Furthermore, there is often confusion about the meaning of research-based spelling

practices (Treiman, 2018). Currently, research supports a multi-linguistic approach that

incorporates phonological, morphological, orthographical, and semantic components (Daffern &

Ramful, 2020; Masterson & Apel, 2010; Wolter, & Gillon, 2017). The multi-linguistic approach

has been developing over the past fifteen years and is not as well known or as utilized. This

development is seen even within Fresch’s (2003) survey. The survey was used to help form a

baseline understanding of teacher beliefs and practice. Within the theoretical orientation section,

the statements were primarily based on a variety of activities and pedagogical beliefs (i.e., using

202

cooperative groups, individualizing instruction, connecting spelling and writing, using

manipulatives, and using journals) and methodological beliefs (i.e., traditional approach,

developmental word study approach, and incidental approach). However, missing within the

survey are questions involving a linguistic approach to spelling. As schools are institutions, the

smaller component of spelling and current research accompanying it can easily be overlooked if

not highlighted within the curriculum or valued within the district.

Practical Implications

Understanding the process of spelling instruction showcases several practical

implications. First, as a key link between students and academic achievement, teachers directly

influence spelling instruction and student learning. Next, by illustrating the influences of

curriculum upon spelling, curriculum makers (and curriculum consumers) can ensure research-

based spelling instruction takes place. Finally, as districts work to meet state policies, ensuring

the usage of high-quality materials would be beneficial.

Teacher implications. Environmental context influences teachers. However, even

within scripted programs, teachers may still find ways to adapt curricular materials to meet their

students’ needs (Monte-Sano, De La Paz, & Felton, 2014). Within classrooms, there are a

variety of research-based practices teachers can use that have multi-linguistic underpinnings.

Since schools have a variety of expectations and curriculum, the following recommended

activities could work with an embedded or formal spelling curriculum. If working with multi-

linguistic skills (i.e., morphological, etymological, phonological, and orthographical concepts),

the following activities are beneficial: (a) word sorts (Bear et al., 2012; Bear & Templeton, 1998;

Harris et al., 2017; Rasinski, Rupley & Nichols, 2008; Wolter & Green, 2013), (b) structured

word inquiry (Bowers & Bowers, 2018; Colenbrander et al., 2021; Georgiou et al., 2021;

203

Hastings & Trexler, 2021), (c) word or Elkonin boxes (Alber-Morgan, Joseph, Kanotz, Rouse, &

Sawyer, 2016; Kessy et al. 2015), and (d) explicit spelling instruction with rules (Graham &

Santangelo, 2014).

Curriculum implications. Professional development influences teacher learning

(Kennedy, 2016; Maeng, Whitworth, Bell, & Sterling, 2020). In this study, professional

development accompanied curriculum implementation in the public-school settings. Therefore,

if teachers are to learn how to teach spelling with a multi-linguistic approach, the multi-linguistic

approach should be in the curriculum. Curriculum developers have a variety of influences,

including research trends, societal expectations, technology, local context, and policies

(Anderson & Rogan, 2011). Within the area of researched trends in spelling, there are areas of

conflicting research. After all, an incidental approach does work; it is just not as beneficial as

linguistic methods (Treiman, 2018). Likewise, developmental stage activities (such as the word

sorts in Words their Way) are research-based, but the underlying developmental stage of

methodological approaches is lacking in research (Daffern & Critten, 2019; Treiman &

Bourassa, 2000). Current research supports spelling being taught with word work by

incorporating morphology, etymology, orthography, and phonology (Bowers & Bowers, 2018;

Daffern & Critten, 2019; Keesey et al., 2015; Westwood, 2018). Furthermore, spelling does not

have to be a separate curriculum from the English language arts program; spelling word work

strengthens decoding (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). Thus, if it is included, when curriculum

representatives train educators, they can include instruction on how to teach utilizing the

linguistic features of English.

District implications. With multiple pressures upon a district, spelling can easily be

overlooked. However, since spelling improves reading (Graham & Santangelo, 2014), it is

204

worth the investment of time and resources. The importance of high-quality instructional

materials (i.e., curriculums that utilize research-based methodologies) has become a focus within

last ten years (Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012; Opfer, Kaufman, & Thompson, 2016). In the

absence of high-quality materials, teachers may look to online resources, including Pinterest and

Google, and use resources with varying degrees of effectiveness (Opfer et al., 2016). Therefore,

districts should ensure teachers are provided with high quality instructional spelling materials.

Additionally, as teachers rarely have training or undergraduate or graduate coursework in

research-based spelling practices, professional development should accompany those spelling

materials.

As teachers often have a limited linguistic knowledge (Ehri & Flugman, 2018; Moats,

2014), professional development that focuses on developing linguistic skills (i.e., morphological,

etymological, phonological, and orthographical) would help teachers develop a foundation with

which to understand and teach spelling. Next, training could switch to the application of those

skills. Therefore, teachers could learn how to embed morphological word work into a typical

ELA classroom, or they may learn how to apply phonological concepts into reading and writing.

Supplementing the training with literacy mentors would further help to ensure application and

implementation (Ehri & Flugman, 2018).

Delimitations and Limitations

Within every study, delimitations and limitations are inevitable (Theofanidis &

Fountouki, 2019). Delimitations inherently come from the multiple case study format, which

was chosen in order to develop a deep understanding of a phenomena (Ellis & Levy, 2009).

Specifically, this researcher wanted to understand the instructional spelling choices of teachers.

Sites were in different districts and included public and private schools; this diversity allowed the

205

effects of various national and state policies to become evident. The schools were within a forty-

mile radius of each other within a single state. The closer proximity allowed travel multiple

times to the same school on any given day. At Washington, this researcher often had to arrive

when school began for the first part of the lesson (whole group lesson) and then return at the end

of the day for the last part of the lesson (individualized small groups). Yet, as there were only

three sites, broad generalization to wider populations cannot be affirmed. As stated by Simon and

Goes (2013), behaviors within the units of analysis “may or may not reflect the behavior of

similar entities” (p. 2).

Participants from the sites included third and fourth grade teachers, a reading expert, and

an administrator. Teachers in other grades may have different experiences. Reading experts

were chosen to be included as they may act as the human resource for teachers with spelling or

literacy questions. The principals helped to provide an overview of the school’s and

administration’s beliefs and school culture.

As a qualitative embedded case study, limitations are inherent within the format. As the

primary researcher, there are biases that if undeterred could skew data and findings. Hence, as a

human instrument (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in this qualitative inquiry, this researcher worked to

separate biased views from those of the participant. Data was collected and interviews

completed, and a research assistant helped transcribe interviews and acted as a second coder.

Everything was coded separately before meeting and discussing the codes until 100% agreement

was reached. To further limit researcher bias, an audit trail was created, member checked, and

reflective notes written throughout the data collection process. Furthermore, this researcher’s

presence within classrooms may have affected the observed lessons. Therefore, data was

206

triangulated to help reveal incongruency within participant statements/actions and bias within

researcher analysis.

Another limitation within the study includes the differing roles and experiences of the

reading specialists and administrators. The reading experts all had varying school roles. Jessica

(JLE) was the school’s reading specialist, but mostly had an administrative role with teacher

observations (providing formal feedback to teachers), overseeing student testing, and running the

professional learning communities. Sarah (WLE) had been the reading specialist for 13 years;

during her role, she oversaw and taught Response to Intervention reading groups. When she was

interviewed, it was her first year as a fifth-grade teacher. Likewise, Marissa had worked in

Lincoln the previous year as Lincoln’s reading specialist, but the role was new to Lincoln. She

transitioned to first grade after a year as the reading specialist. These differing roles meant they

had varying levels of influence and as such, had varying effects upon teacher knowledge and

classroom instruction. However, each one was named by a teacher at least once as someone they

may ask if they had a question about spelling instruction. Therefore, their inclusion, while not

implicitly equal in role, was founded.

Finally, the data collection was almost complete when schools shut down for the school

year due to COVID-19. Only two observations were left with Emma (LT3). Therefore, her

spelling plans and worksheets for the entire week were gathered. This researcher watched the

videos she posted for the students, gathered her assignments and spelling lists, and compared her

lessons with her curriculum. The online lessons were modified so that they could fit into an

asynchronous format but were reflective of what was observed in class during the first lesson.

Therefore, the lessons were included and placed within her data set (see Appendix I).

Recommendations for Future Research

207

Considering the study’s findings, limitations, and the delimitations, there are several

recommendations for future studies. First, utilizing a comparative analysis of spelling

components within major ELA curriculums is suggested. Curriculum greatly influences

instruction (Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012). Districts in Delaware often begin their search for new

curriculum by looking at EdReports.org, which “grades” a wide variety of ELA curriculum.

However, spelling is not a component it reviews. Therefore, an analysis of different spelling

curriculums and their alignment with research would help both districts and teachers measure the

curriculum’s “spelling worth” or determine if other curriculums would be more effective. Next,

multiple case studies should be completed with participants in varying states to gain a more

complete understanding of how environmental aspects influence teachers’ spelling instruction.

In gaining greater depth of understanding in how instructional choices are made, supports can be

put in place to scaffold effective instructional spelling choices. Finally, utilizing a correlational

research study focus on effective strategies to develop the linguistic abilities of teachers is

suggested, specifically focusing on developing knowledge within each specific domain of

morphological, phonological, orthographical, and etymological and a study of how the

development of the varying domains influences spelling instruction.

Summary

Spelling instruction. Two words. So much complexity. The layers of complexity

include school type (public or private), governmental policies (including teacher autonomy),

school and administrative expectations, teacher training and knowledge, and curriculum. The

layers almost act as an organism, forming in response to one another. For instance, student state

test scores affect district pressure, which affects curriculum choices, which affects teacher

training, which affects instructional choices. Throughout this study, however, curriculum has

208

been the framework upon which spelling instruction sits, with teacher autonomy moderating how

teachers plan their lessons.

Hence, the same teacher, if placed into a different context, may have a vastly different

approach to spelling. With the intense workload and breadth of topics to understand (e.g.,

classroom management, science, social studies, reading, math, etc.), spelling is often more of the

ugly stepsister compared to the Cinderella that is reading instruction. Yet, to take the stepsisters

out would change Cinderella’s tale. Likewise, spelling needs to be in the story of ELA

Curriculum; its role and relationships should be discussed during “reading circles” (a.k.a.,

professional development). Moreover, instead of being stuck into one “archetype” (i.e., the old

fashioned, traditional method), spelling should evolve to include engaging activities where kids

(and teachers) are discovering how a word’s history (etymology), sounds (phonology), and

meanings (morphology) converge as letters are inked onto a paper. Perhaps these discoveries are

made during activities such as word sorts or structured word inquiry. Perhaps they occur during

discussions and word work. Whatever the method, as true understanding of words happens, a

fuller, research-based picture emerges, and spelling finds its rightful, supportive place within the

framework of English language arts.

209

REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Quatroche, D. (2008). Becoming a professional reading teacher.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Adoniou, M. (2014). What should teachers know about spelling? Literacy, 48(3), 144-154.

doi:10.1111/lit.12017

Akhter, N., & Akhtar, M. (2014). Gaps between beliefs and practices of teachers at school

level. Journal of Educational Research, 17(2), 1-12. Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Alber-Morgan, S. R., Joseph, L. M., Kanotz, B., Rouse, C. A., & Sawyer, M. R. (2016). The

effects of word box instruction on acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of

decoding and spelling skills for first graders. Education and Treatment of

Children, 39(1), 21-43. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/611998/summary

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Teachers’ views of their school climate and its

relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learning Environments

Research, 19(2), 291-307. doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9198-x

Alvunger, D. (2018). Teachers' curriculum agency in teaching a standards-based

curriculum. Curriculum Journal (London, England), 29(4), 479-498.

doi:10.1080/09585176.2018.1486721

Amtmann, D., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2008). Identifying and predicting classes of

response to explicit phonological spelling instruction during independent composing.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(3), 218-234. doi:10.1177/0022219408315639

210

Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2012). Morphological processing strategies: An intervention for

spelling difficulties in English language. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 15-23.

doi:10.5539/elt.v5n4p15

Anderson, D. L., & Standerford, N. S. (2012). Inside out and outside in: Rethinking spelling in

inclusive elementary classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(2), 125-146.

doi:10.2167/le805.0

Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development of phonological awareness. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 255-259. doi:10.1111/j.0963-

7214.2005.00376.x

Apel, K. (2009). The acquisition of mental orthographic representations for reading and spelling

development. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(1), 42-52.

doi:10.1177/1525740108325553

Apel, K. (2011). What is orthographic knowledge? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in

Schools, 42(4), 592-603. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0085)

Apel, K., & Lawrence, J. (2011). Contributions of morphological awareness skills to word-level

reading and spelling in first-grade children with and without speech sound disorder.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 54(5), 1312-1327.

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0115)

Apel, K., Henbest, V. S., & Masterson, J. (2018). Orthographic knowledge: Clarifications,

challenges, and future directions. Reading and Writing,1-17. doi:10.1007/s11145-018-

9895-9

Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Hart, P. (2004). Integration of language components in spelling:

Instruction that maximizes students’ learning. In E. R. Silliman, & L. C. Wilkinson,

211

(Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools. (pp. 292-315). New York: Guilford

Press.

Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A. (2012). Metalinguistic contributions

to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25(6),

1283-1305. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9317

Applegate, A. J. & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter effect: Reading habits and attitudes of

preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554–563. Retrieved from

http://www.thoughtfulliteracy.com/Applegate%20and%20Applegate,%202004%20The%

20Peter%20Effect.pdf

Assude, T. (2005). Time management in the work economy of a class, a case study: Integration

of Cabri in primary school mathematics teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics,

59(1–3), 183–203. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/journal/10649

Atkinson, T. S., Zhang, G., Phillips, S. F., & Zeller, N. (2014). Using word study instruction with

developmental college students. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(4), 433-448.

doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12015

August, G. (2011). Spelling facilitates good ESL reading comprehension. Journal of

Developmental Education, 35(1), 14-24. Retrieved from

https://ncde.appstate.edu/publications/journal-developmental-education-jde

Avalos, M. A., Perez, X., & Thorrington, V. (2020). Comparing secondary English teachers'

ideal and actual writing practices for diverse learners: Constrained professionalism in

figured worlds of high-stakes testing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(3), 225-242

doi:10.1080/10573569.2019.1635056

212

Bahr, R. H., Silliman, E., Berninger, V., & Dow, M. (2012). Linguistic pattern analysis of

misspellings of typically developing writers in grades 1–9. Journal of Speech, Language,

and Hearing Research, 55, 1587–1599. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/10-0335)

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. K. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach.

New York: Routledge.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Philadelphia, PA: Open

University Press.

Bate, F. (2010). A bridge too far? Explaining beginning teachers’ use of ICT in Australian

schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 1042–1061.

doi:10.14742/ajet.1033

Baumann, J. F., & Heubach, K. M. (1996). Do basal readers deskill teachers? A national survey

of educators’ use and opinions of basals. Elementary School Journal, 96, 511-526.

doi:10.1086/461842

Bean, R. M., Kern, D., Goatley, V., Ortlieb, E., Shettel, J., Calo, K., . . . Cassidy, J. (2015).

Specialized literacy professionals as literacy leaders: Results of a national

survey. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(2), 83-114.

doi:10.1080/19388071.2014.998355

213

Bear, D., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for

learning and teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 52(3),

222–242. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.631.8179&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for

phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Bell, M. (2012). Spelling it out: The problems and costs of English spelling [Kindle version].

Retrieved from www.amazon.com

Bendikson, L., Robinson, V., & Hattie, J. (2012). Principal instructional leadership and

secondary school performance. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 2-8. Retrieved

from https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/journals/set/downloads/set2012_1_002_0.pdf

Benoliel, P., & Schechter, C. (2017). Is it personal? Teacher’s personality and the principal’s role

in professional learning communities. Improving Schools, 20(3), 222-235.

doi:10.1177/1365480217703725

Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing

and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287-302.

doi:10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Waddington, D. I., & Pickup, D. I. (2019).

Twenty‐first century adaptive teaching and individualized learning operationalized as

specific blends of student‐centered instructional events: A systematic review and meta‐

analysis. Campbell Systematic Review, 15(1-2), 1-35. doi:10.1002/cl2.1017

214

Bhattacharya, A. (2020). Syllabic versus morphemic analyses: Teaching multisyllabic word

reading to older struggling readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(5), 491-

497. doi:10.1002/jaal.984

Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational

professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. doi:10.1111/ejed.12109

Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter Effect in the

preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526-536.

doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.601434

Black, D. W. (2017). Abandoning the federal role in education: The Every Student Succeeds

Act. California Law Review, 105(5), 1309-1372. Retrieved from

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/

Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers'

curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 62(4), 393-416. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x

Bosman, A., van Hell, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2006). Learning the spelling of strange words in

Dutch benefits from regularized reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 879-

890. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.879

Bosse, M. (2015). Learning to read and spell: How children acquire word orthographic

knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 9(4), 222-226. doi:10.1111/cdep.12133

Bouffler, C. (1997). They don't teach spelling anymore - or do they? Australian Journal of

Language and Literacy, 20(2), 140-147. Retrieved from

https://www.alea.edu.au/resources/australian-journal-of-language-and-literacy-ajll

215

Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2018). Progress in reading instruction requires a better

understanding of the English spelling system. Current Directions in Psychological

Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 27(6), 407-412.

412. doi:10.1177/0963721418773749

Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary

acquisition. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 515-537. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9172-z

Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation

and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.

doi:10.3102/0162373709353129

Boynton-Hauerwas, L. & Walker, J. (2004). What can children' s spelling of running and jumped

tell us about their need for spelling instruction? The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 168–176.

doi:10.1598/rt.58.2.5

Bradfield, K. Z., & Exley, B. (2020). Teachers’ accounts of their curriculum use: External

contextual influences during times of curriculum reform. Curriculum Journal (London,

England), 31(4), 757-774. doi:10.1002/curj.56

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brawand, A., & King‐Sears, M. E. (2017). Maximizing pedagogy for secondary co‐

teachers. Support for Learning, 32(3), 216-230. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12166

Breach, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Derby, K. M. (2015). An evaluation of copy cover and

compare spelling intervention for an elementary student with learning disabilities: A

216

replication. I-Manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 9(3), 24-31.

doi:10.26634/jpsy.9.3.3770

Brownell, M. T., Lauterbach, A. A., Dingle, M. P., Boardman, A. G., Urbach, J. E., Leko, M. M.,

. . . Park, Y. (2014). Individual and contextual factors influencing special education

teacher learning in literacy learning cohorts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 31-44.

doi:10.1177/0731948713487179

Callingham, R., Carmichael, C. & Watson, J. M. (2016). Explaining student achievement: The

influence of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in statistics. International Journal

of Science and Math Education, 14, 1339–1357.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s10763-015-9653-2

Cansoy, R., Parlar, H., & Kilinc, A. C. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of burnout.

International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(1), 141-155.

doi:10.15345/iojes.2017.01.011

Cara, C. (2009). Pedagogy matters!: Creating a model of practice which reflects the principles of

effective teaching and learning. The International Journal of Learning: Annual

Review, 16(2), 227-244. doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i02/46108

Carl, N. M. (2014). Reacting to the script: Teach for America teachers’ experiences with scripted

curricula. Teacher Education Quarterly (Claremont, Calif.), 41(2), 29-50. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/teaceducquar.41.2.29

Cervetti, G. N., Kulikowich, J. M., & Bravo, M. A. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum

materials on teachers’ use of instructional strategies for English language learners in

science and on student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 86-

98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.005

217

Chambre, S. J., Ehri, L. C., & Ness, M. (2017). Orthographic facilitation of first graders’

vocabulary learning: Does directing attention to print enhance the effect? Reading and

Writing, 30(5), 1137-1156. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9715-z

Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and

quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 44(4), 443-466. doi:10.1080/00220272.2011.650215

Chingos, M. M., & Whitehurst, G. J.. (2012). Choosing blindly: Instructional materials, teacher

effectiveness, and the common core. Brookings Institution Reports. Retrieved from

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2016/06/0410_curriculum_chingos_whitehurst.pdf

Christenson, S. L., Decker, D. M., Triezenberg, H. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Reschly, A. (2007).

Consequences of high-stakes assessment for students with and without

disabilities. Educational Policy (Los Altos, Calif.), 21(4), 662-690.

doi:10.1177/0895904806289209

Christians, C. G. (2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 61-80). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty

on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America, 113(31), 8664-8668. doi:10.1073/pnas.1608207113

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers' social networks. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235. doi:10.3102/0162373708321829

218

Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and

research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-

142. doi:10.3102/01623737025002119

Cohen, D., Moffitt, S., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American

Journal of Education, 113(4), 515-548. https://doi.org/10.1086/518487

Colenbrander, D., Parsons, L., Bowers, J. S., & Davis, C. J. (2021). Assessing the effectiveness

of structured word inquiry for students in grades 3 and 5 with reading and spelling

difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 1-46,

doi:10.1002/rrq.399

Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a

mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. The Elementary School

Journal, 103(3), 287-311. doi:10.1086/499727

Conrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both

ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 869-878. doi:10.1037/a0012544

Conrad, N., Harris, N. & Williams, J. (2013). Individual differences in children's literacy

development: The contribution of orthographic knowledge. Reading and Writing, 26(8),

1223–1239. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9415-2.

Copp, D. T. (2017). Policy incentives in Canadian large-scale assessment: How policy levers

influence teacher decisions about instructional change. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 25(115/116), 1-36. doi:10.14507/epaa.25.3299

Cordewener, K. A. H., Hasselman, F., Verhoeven, L., & Bosman, A. M. T. (2018). The role of

instruction for spelling performance and spelling consciousness. The Journal of

Experimental Education, 86(2), 135-153. doi:10.1080/00220973.2017.1315711

219

Cordewener, K. A. H., Verhoeven, L., & Bosman, A. M. (2016). Improving spelling

performance and spelling consciousness. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(1),

48-74. doi:10.1080/00220973.2014.963213

Coss-Yergian, T., & Krepps, L. (2010). Do teacher attitudes impact literacy strategy

implementation in content area classrooms? Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 4, 1-18.

Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/jip.html

Costigan, A. (2018). "I'm not teaching English, I'm teaching something else!": How new teachers

create curriculum under mandates of educational reform. Educational Studies, 54(2),

198-228. doi:10.1080/00131946.2017.1379809

Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers' perceptions of student misbehaviour : A

review of international research, 1983-2013. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 292-

311. doi:10.1177/0004944115607539

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crystal, D. (2013). Spell it out: The curious, enthralling, and extraordinary story of English

spelling. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Daffern, T. (2015). Helping students become linguistic inquirers: A focus on spelling. Literacy

Learning: The Middle Years, 23(1), 33-39. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tessa_Daffern/publication/292985582_Helping_stu

dents_become_linguistic_inquirers_A_focus_on_spelling/links/57465f2308ae9ace84243

b2e.pdf

Daffern, T. (2017a). What happens when a teacher uses metalanguage to teach spelling? The

Reading Teacher, 70(4), 423-434. doi:10.1002/trtr.1528

220

Daffern, T. (2017b). Linguistic skills involved in learning to spell: An Australian

study. Language and Education, 31(4), 307-321. doi:10.1080/09500782.2017.1296855

Daffern, T., & Critten, S. (2019). Student and teacher perspectives on spelling. The Australian

Journal of Language and Literacy, 42(1), 40-57. Retrieved from https://search-informit-

org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/10.3316/informit.123747266942293

Daffern, T., & Fleet, R. (2021). Investigating the efficacy of using error analysis data to inform

explicit teaching of spelling. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 26(1), 67-88.

doi:10.1080/19404158.2021.1881574

Daffern, T., & Mackenzie, N. M. (2019). A case study on the challenges of learning and teaching

English spelling: Insights from eight Australian students and their teachers. Literacy

(Oxford, England), 54(3), 99-110. doi:10.1111/lit.12215

Daffern, T., & Ramful, A. (2020). Measurement of spelling ability: Construction and validation

of a phonological, orthographic and morphological pseudo-word instrument for students

in grades 3–6. Reading & Writing, 33(3), 571-603. doi:10.1007/s11145-019-09976-1

Daffern, T., Mackenzie, N. M. & Hemmings, B. (2017). Predictors of writing success: How

important are spelling, grammar and punctuation? Australian Journal of Education,

61(1), 75-87. doi:10.1177/0004944116685319.

Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative

curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and

design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293-304. doi:10.3102/0013189X17727502

Davis, K. N. (2011). A comparative content analysis of five spelling programs in the 1st, 3rd,

and 5th grade. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No.

3475627)

221

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2014). The differential impact of observational learning

and practice-based learning on the development of oral presentation skills in higher

education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(2), 256-271.

doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.832155

De La Rosa, S. (2018). High-stakes planet: Testing impacts learners and schools in the U.S.

differently than it impacts those in many other nations. District Administration, 54(10),

50-53. Retrieved from www.districtadministration.com

Deacon, S. H., Tong, X., & Francis, K. (2017). The relationship of morphological analysis and

morphological decoding to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in

Reading, 40(1), 1-16. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12056

Delaware Department of Education. (2018). School profiles. Retrieved from

http://profiles.doe.k12.de.us/SchoolProfiles/State/

DelExcels. (2018). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://delexcels.org/common-

core/

Devonshire, V., & Fluck, M. (2010). Spelling development: Fine-tuning strategy-use and

capitalising on the connections between words. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 361-371.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.025

Devonshire, V., Morris, P, & Fluck, M. (2013). Spelling and reading development: The effect of

teaching children multiple levels of representation in their orthography. Learning and

Instruction, 25, 85–94. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.007

doi:10.1111/1467-8578.12104

222

Donaldson, M. L. (2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness: Constraints

and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 838-882. doi:10.1177/0013161X13485961

Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic

achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(12), 1649-1660.

doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5

Doyle, A., Zhang, J., & Mattatall, C. (2015). Spelling instruction in the primary grades:

Teachers' beliefs, practices, and concerns. Reading Horizons (Online), 54(2), 2-34.

Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol54/iss2/2

du Plessis, P. (2013). The principal as instructional leader: Guiding schools to improve

instruction. Education as Change, 17(1), 79-92. doi:10.1080/16823206.2014.865992

Dunn, K. E., Airola, D. T., Lo, W., & Garrison, M. (2013). Becoming data driven: The influence

of teachers’ sense of efficacy on concerns related to data-driven decision making. The

Journal of Experimental Education, 81(2), 222-241. doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.699899

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New

York: Psychology Press.

Ede, A. (2006). Scripted curriculum: Is it a prescription for success? Childhood

Education, 83(1), 29-32. Doi:10.1080/00094056.2006.10522871

Education Endowment Foundation. (2017). Improving literacy in key stage two. Retrieved from

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/tools/guidance-reports/literacy-ks-

two/#recommendation-5

223

Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the Development of Sight Word Reading and Its

Relationship to Recoding. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading

Acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in

Language Disorders, 20(3), 19-36. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00005

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. Snowling &

C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling

memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21.

doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

Ehri, L. C., & Flugman, B. (2018). Mentoring teachers in systematic phonics instruction:

Effectiveness of an intensive year-long program for kindergarten through 3rd grade

teachers and their students. Reading & Writing, 31(2), 425-456. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-

9792-7

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T.

(2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the

national reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.

doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman & M.

B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative research companion. (pp. 5-35). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

224

Ellis, T., & Levy, Y. (2009). Towards a guide for novice researchers on research methodology:

Review and proposed methods. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology

Education, 6, 323-337. doi:10.28945/1062

Erss, M. (2018). ‘Complete freedom to choose within limits’ – teachers’ views of curricular

autonomy, agency and control in Estonia, Finland and Germany. Curriculum Journal

(London, England), 29(2), 238-256. doi:10.1080/09585176.2018.1445514

Fayol, M., Zorman, M., & Lete, B. (2009). Associations and disassociations in reading and

spelling French: Unexpectedly poor and good spellers. British Journal of Educational

Psychology Monograph Series, 2(6), 63–75. doi:10.1348/000709909x421973

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1993). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S.

programs for beginning teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8),

699-718. doi:10.1016/0883-0355(93)90010-H

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2011). Coaching middle-level teachers to think aloud improves

comprehension instruction and student reading achievement. The Teacher Educator,

46(3), 231–242. doi:10.1080/08878730.2011.580043.

Fletcher, S. H., & Strong, M. A. (2009). Full-release and site-based mentoring of new elementary

grade teachers: An analysis of changes in student achievement. The New Educator, 5(4),

329-341. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2009.10399583

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Foorman, B. R., & Petscher, Y. (2010). Development of spelling and differential relations to text

reading in grades 3-12. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 7-20.

doi:10.1177/1534508410379844

225

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

doi:10.3102/00346543074001059

Fresch, M. J. (2003). A national survey of spelling instruction: Investigating teachers’ beliefs and

practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(3), 819-848. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3503_2

Fresch, M. J. (2007). Teachers' concerns about spelling instruction: A national survey. Reading

Psychology, 28(4), 301-330. doi:10.1080/02702710701545510

Frith, U. (1980). Unexpected spelling problems. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in

Spelling. (pp 495-515). London: Academic Press.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlet, C. L., Powell, S. R., Capizzi, A. M., & Seethaler, P. M. (2006).

The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first

graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 467-475.

doi:10.1177/00222194060390050701

Furner, C., & McCulla, N. (2018). An exploration of the influence of school context, ethos and

culture on teacher career-stage professional learning. Professional Development in

Education, 1-15. doi:10.1080/19415257.2018.1427134

Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416. Retrieved from

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/3

Gallagher, L., Means, B. & Padilla, C. (2008). Teachers’ use of student data systems to improve

instruction: 2005 to 2007. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education, Education

Publications Center. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/teachers-

data-use-2005-2007/teachers-data-use-2005-2007.pdf

226

Galloway, E. P., & Lesaux, N. K. (2014). Leader, teacher, diagnostician, colleague, and change

agent. The Reading Teacher, 67(7), 517-526. doi:10.1002/trtr.1251

Garcia, N. P., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2010). Predicting poor, average, and superior

spellers in grades 1 to 6 from phonological, orthographic, and morphological, spelling, or

reading composites. Written Language & Literacy,13(1), 61-98.

doi:10.1075/wll.13.1.03gar

Gärdenfors P. (2017) Semantic knowledge, domains of meaning and conceptual spaces. In P.

Meusburger, B. Werlen, L. Suarsana L. (Eds.), Knowledge and Action (pp. 203-209).

Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Garwood, J. D., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2017). Classroom management affects literacy

development of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional

Children, 83(2), 123-142. doi:10.1177/0014402916651846

Gaskins, I. W., Ehri, L. C., Cress, C., O'Hara, C., & Donnelly, K. (1996). Procedures for word

learning: Making discoveries about words. The Reading Teacher, 50(4), 312-327.

Retrieved from http://tclark-

readingportfolio.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/gaskins.pdf/440191960/gaskins.pdf

Gentry, J. R. (2005). Instructional techniques for emerging writers and special needs students at

kindergarten and grade 1 levels. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(2), 113-134.

doi:10.1080/10573560590915932

Georgiou, G. K., Savage, R., Dunn, K., Bowers, P., & Parrila, R. (2021). Examining the effects

of structured word inquiry on the reading and spelling skills of persistently poor grade 3

readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 131-153. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12325

227

Ghysels, J., & Haelermans, C. (2018). New evidence on the effect of computerized

individualized practice and instruction on language skills. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 34(4), 440-449. doi:10.1111/jcal.12248

Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological

beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 29(2), 164-185. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.003

Gilligan, G. T. (2018). Central office leaders' role in supporting principals' instructional

expectations in a turnaround district (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations. (Order Number 10787086)

Glatter, R. (2015). Are schools and colleges institutions? Management in Education, 29(3), 100-

104. doi:10.1177/0892020615584108

Goldman, R., Aldridge, J., & Worthington, L. A. (2004). Improving literacy instruction of

special education teachers through additional course work and support. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 167-169. Retrieved from

https://www.questia.com/library/p6137/journal-of-instructional-psychology

Goldrick, L., Osta, D., Barlin, D., & Burn, J. (2012). Review of state policies on teacher

induction (policy paper). Retrieved from https://newteachercenter.org/wp-

content/uploads/brf-ntc-policy-state-teacher-induction.pdf

Good, J. E., Lance, D. M., & Rainey, J. (2015). The effects of morphological awareness training

on reading, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36(3),

142-151. doi:10.1177/1525740114548917

Goodwin, A. P., & Perkins, J. (2015). Word detectives: Morphological instruction that supports

academic language. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 510-510. doi:10.1002/trtr.1342

228

Graddol, D. (1996). English manuscripts: The emergence of a visual identity. In D. Graddol, D.

Leith, & J. Swann (Eds.), English: History, diversity and change. (pp. 41-80). London:

Routledge.

Grafman, J. M., & Cates, G. L. (2010). The differential effects of two self‐managed math

instruction procedures: Cover, copy, and compare versus copy, cover, and

compare. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 153–165. doi:10.1002/pits.20459

Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace traditional spelling instruction?

Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 235–247. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.235

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and

writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.

doi:10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566

Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers,

readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703-1743.

doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the

spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4),

669-686. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.669

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Analysis of

presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12.

doi:10.17161/foec.v44i4.6687

Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., & Mason, L.

(2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades: A national survey of instructional

229

practices and adaptations. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 796-825.

doi:10.3102/0002831208319722

Gray, J., Kruse, S., & Tarter, C. J. (2016). Enabling school structures, collegial trust and

academic emphasis: Antecedents of professional learning communities. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 44(6), 875-891.

doi:10.1177/1741143215574505

Griffith, R. (2008). The impact of a scripted reading program on teachers' professional

spirits. Teaching & Learning (Grand Forks, N.D.), 22(3), 121-133.

Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher

learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(4), 281-301.

doi:10.3102/0162373702600428

Gullo, D. F. (2013). Improving instructional practices, policies, and student outcomes for early

childhood language and literacy through data-driven decision making. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 41(6), 413-421. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0581-x

Gülşen, C., & Gülenay, G. B. (2014). The principal and healthy school climate. Social Behavior

and Personality: An International Journal, 42(1), 93-100. doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.0.S93

Gunning, T. G. (1995). Word building: A strategic approach to the teaching of phonics. The

Reading Teacher, 48(6), 484-488. Retrieved from

https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19362714/

Haddon, E. (2014). Observational learning in the music masterclass. British Journal of Music

Education, 31(1), 55-68. doi:10.1017/s0265051713000223

230

Haimovitz K., Wormington S. V., Corpus J. H. (2011). Dangerous mindsets: How beliefs about

intelligence predict motivational change. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 747–

752

Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., Chua, C. S. K., & Wang, L. (2017). A research agenda for professional

learning communities: Moving forward. Professional Development in Education, 43(1),

72-115. doi:10.1080/19415257.2015.1055861

Ham, S., & Kim, R. (2015). The influence of principals' instructional leadership on teachers' use

of autonomy-supportive instruction: An analysis of three Asia-Pacific countries. Asia-

Pacific Education Researcher, 24(1), 57-65. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0158-x

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2012). Standards-based accountability in the

United States: Lessons learned and future directions. Education Enquiry, 3(2), 149-170.

doi:10.3402/edui.v3i2.22025

Hammer, P. C. (2013). Creating the context and employing best practices for teacher

professional development: A brief review of recent research. Charleston, WV: West

Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565464.pdf

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Aitken, A. A., Barkel, A., Houston, J., & Ray, A. (2017). Teaching

spelling, writing, and reading for writing: Powerful evidence-based

practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(4), 262-272.

doi:10.1177/0040059917697250

Hastings, K., & Trexler, M. (2021). Structured word inquiry: A critical literacy framework for

educators. Interchange (Toronto. 1984), 52(2), 273-296. doi:10.1007/s10780-021-09430-

8

231

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Henbest, V. S., & Apel, K. (2017). Effective word reading instruction: What does the evidence

tell us? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 39(1), 303-311.

doi:10.1177/1525740116685183

Henderson, E. (1987). Learning to read and spell. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University

Press.

Henderson, E. H., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal spelling

instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. Elementary School Journal, 86, 304–

316. doi:10.1086/461451

Herrington, M. H., & Macken-Horarik, M. (2015). Linguistically informed teaching of spelling:

Toward a relational approach. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(2), 61-

71. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mary_Macken-

horarik/publication/281377934_Linguistically_informed_teaching_of_Spelling_Toward_

a_Relational_Approach/links/561d886e08ae50795afd80de.pdf

Hill, H. C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and

quality of instruction: Lessons learned and open issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

44(4), 559-576. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.716978

Hilte, M., & Reitsma, P. (2006). Spelling pronunciation and visual preview both facilitate

learning to spell irregular word. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 301-318. doi:10.1007/s11881-

006-0013-3

232

Ho, D. C. W. (2010). Teacher participation in curriculum and pedagogical decisions: Insights

into curriculum leadership. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 38(5), 613-624. doi:10.1177/1741143210373739

Hobson A., Ashby P., Malderez A., & Tomlinson P. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers:

What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 207–216.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001

Hochstetler, E., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Kinney, M. (2013). The effects of cover,

copy, and compare to teach spelling to middle school students with learning disabilities

and OHI. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(4), 25-48. Retrieved from

http://erquarterly.org

Hodges, R. E. (1987). American spelling instruction: Retrospect and prospect. Visible

Language, 21(2), 215-235. Retrieved from http://visiblelanguagejournal.com

Hoffman, A. R. (2017). The means and end(s) of spelling reform in the Victorian press.

Victorian Periodicals Review, 50(4), 737-751. doi:10.1353/vpr.2017.0053

Höijer, B. (2008). Ontological assumptions and generalizations in qualitative (audience)

research. European Journal of Communication, 23(3), 275-294.

doi:10.1177/0267323108092536

Holmes, V. M., Malone, A. M., & Redenbach, H. (2008). Orthographic processing and visual

sequential memory in unexpectedly poor spellers. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(1),

136-156. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00364.x

Hong, H. & Hamot, G. E. (2015). The associations of teacher professional characteristics, school

environmental factors, and state testing policy on social studies educators’ instructional

233

authority. 39(4). The Journal of Social Studies Research. 225-241,

doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2015.06.009

Hora, M. T. (2012). Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: A cognitive

perspective. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207-235.

doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0001

Hora, M. T., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Park, H. J. (2017). Data driven decision-making in the era

of accountability: Fostering faculty data cultures for learning. The Review of Higher

Education, 40(3), 391-426. doi:10.1353/rhe.2017.0013

Hsu, W. (2014). The most frequent opaque formulaic sequences in English-medium college

textbooks. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied

Linguistics, 47, 146-161. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.10.001

Ickes-Dunbar, A. (2006). Does spelling count? Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 86(1), 3-5.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

doi:10.3102/00028312038003499

Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of

mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

34(4), 435-464. doi:10.3102/0162373712454326

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for

beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational

Research, 81(2), 201-233. doi:10.3102/0034654311403323

234

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: the transformation of the teaching

force, updated April 2014. (CPRE Report #RR-80). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for

Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

International Literacy Association. (2018). Standards 2010: Reading specialist/literacy coach.

Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/standards/standards-for-

reading-professionals/standards-2010-role-5

Invernizzi, M. & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental-spelling research: A systematic

imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 216-228. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.4

James, M., & Pollard, A. (2011a). Introduction. Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 269-273.

doi:10.1080/02671522.2011.595541

James, M., & Pollard, A. (2011b). TLRP's ten principles for effective pedagogy: Rationale,

development, evidence, argument and impact. Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 275-

328. doi:10.1080/02671522.2011.590007

Jaspers, K. E., Williams, R. L., Skinner, C. H., Cihak, D., Mccallum, R. S., & Ciancio, D. J.

(2012). How and to what extent do two cover, copy, and compare spelling interventions

contribute to spelling, word recognition, and vocabulary development? Journal of

Behavioral Education, 21(1), 80-98. doi:10.1007/s10864-011-9137-6

Jennings, J. L., & Bearak, J. M. (2014). "teaching to the test" in the NCLB era: How test

predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational

Researcher, 43(8), 381-389. doi:10.3102/0013189X14554449

Johari, J., Yean-Tan, F., & Tjik-Zulkarnain, Z. I. (2018). Autonomy, workload, work-life balance

and job performance among teachers. International Journal of Educational

Management, 32(1), 107-120. doi:10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226

235

John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant

model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498. doi:10.1080/00220270500363620

Jolly, J. L. (2015). The cost of high stakes testing for high-ability students. Australasian Journal

of Gifted Education, 24(1), 30-36. Retrieved from www.aaegt.net.au

Jones, P., & Lawson, H. (2015). Insights into teacher learning about pedagogy from an

international group of teachers of students with severe intellectual disabilities. European

Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(3), 384-401.

doi:10.1080/08856257.2015.1023000

Joseph, L. M. (2002). Facilitating word recognition and spelling using word boxes and word sort

phonic procedures. School Psychology Review, 31(1), 122-129. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurice_Joseph/publication/234663740_Facilitating

_Word_Recognition_and_Spelling_Using_Word_Boxes_and_Word_Sort_Phonic_Proce

dures/links/5606c14f08aea25fce38b1c8.pdf

Joseph, L. M., Konrad, M., Cates, G., Vajcner, T., Eveleigh, E., & Fishley, K. M. (2012). A

meta‐analytic review of the cover‐copy‐compare and variations of this self‐management

procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 122-136. doi:10.1002/pits.20622

Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., Moats, L. (2008-2009). How words cast their spell.

American Educator, 34, 6-43.Retrieved from

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/joshi.pdf

Kearney, C. A., & Drabman, R. S. (1993). The write‐say method for improving spelling accuracy

in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 52–56.

doi:10.1177/002221949302600106

236

Kearns, D. M., & Whaley, V. M. (2019). Helping students with dyslexia read long words: Using

syllables and morphemes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 212-

225. doi:10.1177/0040059918810010

Keesey, S., Konrad, M., & Joseph, L. M. (2015). Word boxes improve phonemic awareness,

letter–sound correspondences, and spelling skills of at-risk kindergartners. Remedial and

Special Education, 36(3), 167-180. doi:10.1177/0741932514543927

Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading comprehension: Core components

and processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 62-69.

doi:10.1177/2372732215624707

Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of

Educational Research, 86(4), 945-980. doi:10.3102/0034654315626800

Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2003). Is English spelling chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its

irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24(3-4), 267-289. doi:10.1080/02702710390227228

Kidder, L. H. (1981). Selltiz, Wrightsman and Cook’s research methods in social relations (4th

ed.). New York, NY: Rinehart & Winston.

Kim, J. S. (2008). Research and reading wars. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), When research matters (pp.

89-111). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Kim, Y., Al Otaiba, S. A., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., & Gruelich, L. (2014). The contributions of

vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for

kindergartners. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 237-253. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9440-9

Kim, Y., Apel, K., & Al Otaiba, S. (2013). The relation of linguistic awareness and vocabulary

to word reading and spelling for first-grade students participating in response to

237

intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(4), 337-347.

doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0013)

Kirk, C., & Gillon, G. T. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for

improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(3), 341.

doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/08-0009)

Kirkpatrick, C. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2014). Ensuring the ongoing engagement of second-stage

teachers. Journal of Educational Change, 15(3), 231-252. doi:10.1007/s10833-014-9231-

3

Klassen, R., Tze, V., Betts, S., & Gordon, K. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998—2009:

Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21-43.

doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8

Knight, G. R. (2006). Philosophy and education (4th ed.). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews

University Press.

Koh, P. W., Shakory, S., Chen, X., & Deacon, S. H. (2017). Morphology and spelling in French:

A comparison of at‐risk readers and typically developing children. Dyslexia, 23(4), 406-

427. doi:10.1002/dys.1565

Konrad, M., & Joseph, L. M. (2014). Cover-copy-compare: A method for enhancing evidence-

based instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(4), 203-210.

doi:10.1177/1053451213509484

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the

input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

4781.1989.tb05325.x

238

Kumar, V. P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). The role of semantic knowledge in relearning

spellings: Evidence from deep dysgraphia. Aphasiology, 22(5), 489-504.

doi:10.1080/02687030701517206

L'Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. M. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy

coaching? guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. The

Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544-554. doi:10.1598/RT.63.7.2

Landerl, K., Thaler, V., & Reitsma, P. (2008). Spelling pronunciations: Transforming irregularity

into regularity. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 295-308.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.10.001

Leader-Janssen, E. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2013). Preservice teachers' content knowledge

and self-efficacy for teaching reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(3), 204.

Learned, J. E., Dacus, L. C., Morgan, M. J., Schiller, K. S., & Gorgun, G. (2020). "The tail

wagging the dog": High-stakes testing as a mediating context in secondary literacy-

related. Teachers College Record (1970), 122(11), 1-47. Retrieved from

Lee, H., Chung, H. Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and

features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: A systematic review. Applied

Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124-140. doi:10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383

Lee, J. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a

myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177-185.

doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.807491

Leith, D., & Graddol, D. (1996). Modernity and English as a national language. In D. Graddol,

D. Leith, & J. Swann (Eds.), English: History, diversity and change. (pp. 136-179).

London: Routledge.

239

Leithwood, K., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student

learning: review of research. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from:

www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-

Student-Learning.pdf

Leong, Y. H., & Chick, H. L. (2011). Time pressure and instructional choices when teaching

mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(3), 347-362.

doi:10.1007/s13394-011-0019-y

Levesque, K. C., Breadmore, H. L., & Deacon, S. H. (2021). How morphology impacts reading

and spelling: Advancing the role of morphology in models of literacy

development. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 10-26. doi:10.1111/1467-

9817.12313

Li, L., & Wu, X. (2015). Effects of metalinguistic awareness on reading comprehension and the

mediator role of reading fluency from grades 2 to 4. Plos One, 10(3), 1-16.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114417

Lim, L., & Oei, A. C. (2015). Reading and spelling gains following one year of Orton-

Gillingham intervention in Singaporean students with dyslexia: Orton Gillingham

intervention. British Journal of Special Education, 42(4), 374-389.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lochmiller, C. R., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2016). Making sense of principal leadership in content

areas: The case of secondary math and science instruction. Leadership and Policy in

Schools, 15(3), 273-296. doi:10.1080/15700763.2015.1073329

240

Loes, C., & Warren, D. L. (2016). Using observational learning to teach negotiation. Journal of

the Academy of Business Education, 17, 296-310. Retrieved from

https://www.abeweb.org/journal

Losen D. J., Hodson C., Keith M. A., Morrison K., & Belway S. (2015). Are we closing the

school discipline gap? Los Angeles, CA: Center for Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil

Rights Project at UCLA. Retrieved from

https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt2t36g571/qt2t36g571.pdf

Loveall, S. J., Channell, M. M., Phillips, B. A., & Conners, F. A. (2013). Phonological recoding,

rapid automatized naming, and orthographic knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 116, 738-746. doi:10.1016/j.jecp. 2013.05.009

Lundstrom, U. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of new public management. Nordic Journal

of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 73-85-. doi:10.3402/nstep.v1.28144

MacPhee, D., & Jewett, P. (2017). Conflicting discourses: Navigating the tensions of becoming a

literacy coach. The New Educator, 13(4), 408-24. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2016.1237690

Maeng, J. L., Whitworth, B. A., Bell, R. L., & Sterling, D. R. (2020). The effect of professional

development on elementary science teachers’ understanding, confidence, and classroom

implementation of reform‐based science instruction. Science Education (Salem,

Mass.), 104(2), 326-353. doi:10.1002/sce.21562

Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to

inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71-85.

doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.667064

Manfred, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Everson, M. (2015). The effects of a modified

cover, copy, compare on spelling tests and in written compositions for three students with

241

specific learning disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(3), 3-31. Retrieved

from http://erquarterly.org

Mann, V., & Singson, M. (2003). Linking morphological knowledge to English decoding ability:

Large effects of little suffixes. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex

words: Cross-language studies (pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

Mårtensson, K. (2014). Influencing teaching and learning microcultures. Academic development

in a research-intensive university. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.

Martin-Chang, S., Ouellette, G., & Madden, M. (2014). Does poor spelling equate to slow

reading? The relationship between reading, spelling, and orthographic quality. Reading

and Writing, 27(8), 1485-1505. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9502-7

Martin-Lacroux, C., & Lacroux, A. (2017). Do employers forgive applicants’ bad spelling in

résumés? Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 321-335.

doi:10.1177/2329490616671310

Martinez, A., McMahon, S. D., & Treger, S. (2016). Individual- and school-level predictors of

student office disciplinary referrals. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral

Disorders, 24(1), 30-41. doi:10.1177/1063426615588289

Martins, M. A., & Silva, C. (2006). The impact of invented spelling on phonemic awareness.

Learning and Instruction, 16, 41–56. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.005

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Masterson, J. J., & Apel, K. (2010). The spelling sensitivity score: Noting developmental

changes in spelling knowledge. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 35-45.

doi:10.1177/1534508410380039

242

May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332-352. doi:10.1177/0013161X10383411

McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A.

(2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement:

The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education, 32(5), 493-551. doi:10.2307/749803

McLeod, A. N., & Apel, K. (2015). Morphological awareness intervention. Communication

Disorders Quarterly, 36(4), 208-218. doi:10.1177/1525740114560371

McMurray, S., & McVeigh, C. (2016). The case for frequency sensitivity in orthographic

learning. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(4), 243-253.

doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12079

McNeill, B. C., Wolter, J., & Gillon, G. T. (2017). A comparison of the metalinguistic

performance and spelling development of children with inconsistent speech sound

disorder and their age-matched and reading-matched peers. American Journal of Speech-

Language Pathology, 26(2), 456-469. doi:10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0085

McNeill, B., & Kirk, C. (2014). Theoretical beliefs and instructional practices used for teaching

spelling in elementary classrooms. Reading and Writing, 27(3), 535-554.

doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9457-0

Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers'

concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 39-56. Retrieved from

http://erquarterly.org

Merriam S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

243

Meyer, C. B. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Methods, 13(4), 329-352.

doi:10.1177/1525822X0101300402

Meyer, H., & Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism in education. Albany: State University

of New York Press.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milosovic, S. (2007). Building a case against scripted reading programs. The Education Digest,

73(1), 27-30. Retrieved from www.eddigest.com

Minarechová, M. (2012). Negative impacts of high-stakes testing. Journal of Pedagogy

(Warsaw), 3(1), 82-100. doi:10.2478/v10159-012-0004-x

Moats, L. (2005). How spelling supports reading: And why it is more predictable and regular

than you think. American Educator, 29, 12-43. Retrieved from

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Moats.pdf

Moats, L. (2014). What teachers don't know and why they aren't learning it: Addressing the need

for content and pedagogy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Learning

Difficulties, 19(2): 75–91. doi:10.1080/19404158.2014.941093

Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Implementing a disciplinary-literacy

curriculum for US history: Learning from expert middle school teachers in diverse

classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 540-575.

doi:10.1080/00220272.2014.904444

Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Implementing a disciplinary-literacy

curriculum for US history: Learning from expert middle school teachers in diverse

244

classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 540-575.

doi:10.1080/00220272.2014.904444

Moore, N., Coldwell, M., & Perry, E. (2021). Exploring the role of curriculum materials in

teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 331-

347. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1879230

Müller, C. M., Hofmann, V., Begert, T., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018). Peer influence on

disruptive classroom behavior depends on teachers' instructional practice. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 99-108. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2018.04.001

Murray, B. A., & Steinen, N. (2011). W or d / m a p /p i ng: How understanding spellings

improves spelling power. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(5), 299-304.

doi:10.1177/1053451210395388

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Fast facts. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work or a ticket out: A survey of

business leaders. Retrieved from

www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National

Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH

Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Neumann, J. W. (2016). Examining mandated testing, teachers' milieu, and teachers' knowledge

and beliefs: Gaining a fuller understanding of the web of influence on teachers' classroom

practices. Teachers College Record (1970), 118(2), 1-50.

245

Ni, Y. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools:

Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 571-584.

doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.01.003

Nichols, W. D., Zellner, L. J., Willson, V. L., Mergen, S., & Young, C. A. (2005). What affects

instructional choice? Profiles of K-2 teachers' use of reading instructional strategies and

methods. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 437-458. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3704

Nicholson, T. (2011). The Orton-Gillingham approach: What is it? Is it research-

based? Learning Difficulties Australia Bulletin, 43(1), 9-12.

Nies, K. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (2006). Enhancing spelling performance in students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15(3), 163-170. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-

9017-7

Niolaki, G. Z., Masterson, J., & Terzopoulos, A. R. (2014). Spelling improvement through letter-

sound and whole-word training in two multilingual Greek- and English- speaking

children. Multilingual Education, 4(1), 1-23. doi:10.1186/s13616-014-0020-3

Northey, G., Govind, R., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., Dolan, R., & van Esch, P. (2018). The effect

of “here and now” learning on student engagement and academic achievement. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 321-333. doi:10.1111/bjet.12589

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to

meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-

13. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847

Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Barros, R. (2012). The development of word recognition and its

significance for comprehension and fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4),

959-973. doi:10.1037/a0027412

246

Nurmi, J., & Kiuru, N. (2015). Students’ evocative impact on teacher instruction and teacher–

child relationships: Theoretical background and an overview of previous research.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(5), 445-457.

doi:10.1177/0165025415592514

Ocal, T., & Ehri, L. C. (2017). Spelling pronunciations help college students remember how to

spell difficult words. Reading and Writing, 30(5), 947-967. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-

9707-z

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED). (2014). Below the

radar: Low-level disruption in the country’s classroom (Report No. 140157).

Manchester, England: Harford.

Olsen, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work

inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1),

9-44. doi:10.3102/0002831208320573

Opfer, V. D., Kaufman, J. H., & Thompson, L. E. (2016). Implementation of K–12 state

standards for mathematics and English language arts and literacy: Findings from the

American Teacher Panel. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1529-1.html.

Ouellette, G. (2010). Orthographic learning in learning to spell: The roles of semantics and type

of practice. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(1), 50-58.

doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.04.009

Packer, M. (2011). The science of qualitative research. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

247

Paige, D. D., Rupley, W. H., Smith, G. S., Olinger, C., & Leslie, M. (2018). Acquisition of letter

naming knowledge, phonological awareness, and spelling knowledge of kindergarten

children at risk for learning to read. Child Development Research, 2018, 1-10.

doi:10.1155/2018/2142894

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and

evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and

practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy

scale. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 86(3), 172-178.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155

Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216-252.

doi:10.1177/0895904803260041

Perakyla, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2011). Analyzing talk and text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 529-543). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perfetti, C. & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro & P.

Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of Functional Literacy (pp. 189-213). Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs

and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002

248

Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15,

1-12.

Pines, A. M. (2002). Teacher burnout: A psychodynamic existential perspective. Teachers and

Teaching, 8(2), 121–140. doi:10.1080/13540600220127331

Planton, S., Jucla, M., Roux, F., & Démonet, J. (2013). The "handwriting brain": A meta-

analysis of neuroimaging studies of motor versus orthographic processes. Cortex; a

Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 49(10), 2772-2787.

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2013.05.011

Player, D., Youngs, P., Perrone, F., & Grogan, E. (2017). How principal leadership and person-

job fit are associated with teacher mobility and attrition. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 67, 330-339. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.017

Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2014). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and

pedagogy: A teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640-

657. doi:10.1080/02680939.2013.865082

Pollard, A. (2010). Directing the teaching and learning research programme: Or 'trying to fly a

glider made of jelly'. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(1), 27-46.

doi:10.1080/00071000903516395

Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum

making: Agents of change and spaces for maneuver. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191-214.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00588.x

Printy, S. (2010). Principals' influence on instructional quality: Insights from US schools. School

Leadership & Management, 30(2), 111-126. doi:10.1080/13632431003688005

249

Puliatte, A., & Ehri, L. C. (2018). Do 2nd and 3rd grade teachers’ linguistic knowledge and

instructional practices predict spelling gains in weaker spellers? Reading and

Writing, 31(2), 239-266. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9783-8

Puranik, C. S., & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to

written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1523-1546.

doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9331-x

Purcell, J. J., Shea, J., & Rapp, B. (2014). Beyond the visual word form area: The orthography-

semantics interface in spelling and reading. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31(5-6), 482-

510. doi:10.1080/02643294.2014.909399

Purnomo, Y. W., Suryadi, D., & Darwis, S. (2016). Examining pre-service elementary school

teacher beliefs and instructional practices in mathematics class. International Electronic

Journal of Elementary Education, 8(4), 629-642. Retrieved from

https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/137

Purvis, C. J., McNeill, B. C., & Everatt, J. (2016). Enhancing the metalinguistic abilities of pre-

service teachers via coursework targeting language structure knowledge. Annals of

Dyslexia, 66(1), 55-70. doi:10.1007/s11881-015-0108-9

Putman, R. (2016). Using research to make informed decisions about spelling research. Texas

Journal of Literacy Education, 5(1), 24-32. Retrieved from

www.texasreaders.org/journal.html

Puzio, K., Newcomer, S. N., & Goff, P. (2015). Supporting literacy differentiation: The

principal's role in a community of practice. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(2),

135-162. doi:10.1080/19388071.2014.997944

250

Rapp, B., & Lipka, K. (2011). The literate brain: The relationship between spelling and

reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(5), 1180-1197.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21507

Rasinski, T., Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, W. D. (2008). Two essential ingredients: Phonics and

fluency getting to know each other. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 257-260.

doi:10.1598/RT.62.3.

Regan, K. S., Evmenova, A. S., Kurz, L. A., Hughes, M. D., Sacco, D., Ahn, S. Y., . . . Chirinos,

D. S. (2016). Researchers apply lesson study: A cycle of lesson planning,

implementation, and revision. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(2), 113-

122. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12101

Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics

curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. 246.

doi:10.3102/00346543075002211

Retelsdorf, J., & Köller, O. (2014). Reciprocal effects between reading comprehension and

spelling. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 77-83.

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.11.007

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom

emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712. doi:10.1037/a0027268

Richards, T., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2009). fMRI activation differences between 11-year-

old good and poor spellers’ access in working memory to temporary and long-term

orthographic representations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(4), 327–353.

doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.11.002

251

Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Nation, K. (2009). Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary

acquisition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1948–1966. doi:10.1080/

17470210802696104.

Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher

Education, 28(8), 1091-1106. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.003

Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in

instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research

Journal, 52(3), 475-514. doi:10.3102/0002831215585562

Rooney, E. (2015). “I’m just going through the motions”: High-stakes accountability and

teachers’ access to intrinsic rewards. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 475-500.

doi:10.1086/681923

Ross, K. M., & Joseph, L. M. (2019). Effects of word boxes on improving students' basic literacy

skills: A literature review. Preventing School Failure, 63(1), 43-

51. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2018.1480006

Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., Cooper, D. H., & Paz, S. D. L. (1996). Unresolved mysteries: How do

metalinguistic and narrative skills connect with early reading? The Journal of Special

Education, 30(3), 257-277. doi:10.1177/002246699603000303

Rubenstein, L. D., Ridgley, L. M., Callan, G. L., Karami, S., & Ehlinger, J. (2018). How teachers

perceive factors that influence creativity development: Applying a social cognitive theory

perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 100-110.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.012

252

Ryve, A., & Hemmi, K. (2019). Educational policy to improve mathematics instruction at scale:

Conceptualizing contextual factors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(3), 379-

394. doi:10.1007/s10649-019-09887-6

Saeki, E., Pendergast, L., Segool, N. K., & von der Embse, Nathaniel P. (2015). Potential

psychosocial and instructional consequences of the common core state standards:

Implications for research and practice. Contemporary School Psychology, 19(2), 89-

97. doi:10.1007/s40688-014-0043-5

Saeki, E., Segool, N., Pendergast, L., & Embse, N. (2018). The influence of test‐based

accountability policies on early elementary teachers: School climate, environmental

stress, and teacher stress. Psychology in the Schools, 55(4), 391-403.

doi:10.1002/pits.22112

Saldana, J. & Omasta, M. (2017). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Sayeski, K. L. (2011). Effective spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(2), 75-81. doi:10.1177/1053451211414191

Schermerhorn, P. K., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997). Effects of the Add‐A‐Word spelling program

on test accuracy, grades, and retention of spelling words with fifth and sixth grade regular

education students. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 19, 23–35.

doi:10.1300/j019v19n01_02

Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as

predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 42, 159-171. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.005

253

Schiff, R., Ben-Shushan, N. Y., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2017). Metacognitive strategies: A foundation

for early word spelling and reading in kindergartners with SLI. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 50(2), 143-157. doi:10.1177/0022219415589847

Schlagal, B. (2002). Classroom spelling instruction: History, research, and practice. Reading

Research and Instruction, 42(1), 44-57. doi:10.1080/19388070209558380

Schneider, J., & Saultz, A. (2020). Authority and control: The tension at the heart of standards-

based accountability. Harvard Educational Review, 90(3), 419-519. Retrieved from

https://www.hepg.org/her-home/home

Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and

qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the

basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), 3-20.

doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/002)

Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom

instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663. doi:10.1177/0013161X11436273

Sebastian, J., Allensworth, E., & Huang, H. (2016). The role of teacher leadership in how

principals influence classroom instruction and student learning. American Journal of

Education, 123(1), 69-108. doi:10.1086/688169

Sénéchal, M. (2017). Testing a nested skills model of the relations among invented spelling,

accurate spelling, and word reading, from kindergarten to grade 1. Early Child

Development and Care, 187(3-4), 358-370. doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1205044

254

Shahzad, K., & Naureen, S. (2017). Impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school

students’ academic achievement. Journal of Education and Educational

Development, 4(1), 48-72. doi:10.22555/joeed.v4i1.1050

Sheras, P. L., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016). Fostering policies that enhance positive school

environment. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 129-135. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1156990

Silverman, D. (2000) Analyzing talk and text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

qualitative research (2nd ed.). (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. Scope, limitations, and delimitations. Retrieved from

https://ders.es/limitationscopedelimitation1.pdf

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Knopf.

Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-

managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of

Behavioral Education, 7(3), 295-306. doi:10.1023/A:1022823522040

Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated

instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers

in Psychology, 10, 2366-2366. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on

beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.

doi:10.3102/00028312041003681

Soltaninejad, N., Soltaninejad, F., Ashtab, F., & Mohammadi, M. (2014). Relationship between

phonological awareness and spelling proficiency in first-grade students. Audiology, 23(5),

78-85. Retrieved from http://aud.tums.ac.ir

255

Sparks, D. & Malkus, M. (2012). Public School teacher autonomy in the classroom across

school years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 2011-12 (Stats in Brief, ED-IES-12-D-0002).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561873.pdf

Spencer, E. J. (2016). Professional learning communities: Keeping the focus on instruction

practice. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52(2), 82-85. doi:10.1080/00228958.2016.1156544

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research. (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Stephens, D., Morgan, D. N., DeFord, D. E., Donnelly, A., Hamel, E., Keith, K. J., . . . Leigh, S.

R. (2011). The impact of literacy coaches on teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of

Literacy Research, 43(3), 215-249. doi:10.1177/1086296X11413716

Strydom, H. (2013). An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Social

Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 49(2), 149-164. doi:10.15270/49-2-58

Suddaby R. (2013). Institutional theory. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory

(pp. 379-384). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Suddaby, R. (2015). Can institutional theory be critical? Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1),

93-95. doi:10.1177/1056492614545304

Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and

learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.

doi:10.1177/1094670509353043

256

Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. E. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the

literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 327–

358. Retrieved from www.springer.com

Taylor, R. T., Zugelder, B. S., & Bowman, P. (2013). Literacy coach effectiveness: The need for

measurement. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(1), 34-

46. doi:10.1108/20466851311323078

Theofanidis, D. & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations And delimitations in the research process.

Perioperative nursing, 7(3), 155–162. doi:10.5281/zenodo.2552022

Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse

classrooms (Third ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tompkins, G. (2014). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. (6th ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Traynelis-Yurek, E., & Strong, M. W. (1999). Spelling practices in school districts and regions

across the united states and state spelling standards. Reading Horizons, 39(4), 279-294.

Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol39/iss4/3/

Treiman, R. (2018). Teaching and learning spelling. Child Development Perspectives, 12(4),

235-239. doi:10.1111/cdep.12292

Treiman, R. & Bourassa, D. C. (2000). The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language

Disorders, 20, 1-18. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00004

Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2014). How children learn to write words. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Truss, L. (2003). Eats, shoots & leaves: A zero tolerance approach to punctuation. New York,

NY: Gotham Books.

257

Tsouloupas, C., Carson, R., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M., & Barber, L. (2011). Exploring the

association between teachers' perceived student misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion:

The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational

Psychology, 30(2), 173-189. doi:10.1080/01443410903494460

Turnbull, M. (2016). Adverse impact of high-stakes testing. Education, 97(7), 6-7. Retrieved

from http://education.nswtf.org.au/files/8314/7856/6725/16343_JA_High_Stakes_F.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Condition

of Education 2018 (NCES 2018-144).

Uhry, J. K. (2013). The role of phonemic awareness in learning to read and spell successfully.

Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 39(1), 11-16. Retrieved from

https://dyslexiaida.org/perspectives/

Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2014). The impact of principal perception on student academic

climate and achievement in high school: How does it measure up? Journal of School

Leadership, 24(2), 386-414. Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/JSL

Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for

lower-skilled first-graders: The influence of language status and word reading skills on

third- grade literacy outcomes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26,

821–841. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4

Van den Hurk, H., Houtveen, A., & Van de Grift, W. J. (2017). Does teachers' pedagogical

content knowledge affect their fluency instruction? Reading and Writing, 30(6), 1231-

1249. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9721-9

258

Vanderburg, M., & Stephens, D. (2010). The impact of literacy coaches: What teachers value

and how teachers change. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 141-163.

doi:10.1086/65347

Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American

English orthography. New York, NY: Guilford.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional

learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 24(1), 80-91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Vines, N., Jordan, J., & Broemmel, A. D. (2020). Reenvisioning spelling instruction:

Developmental word study nonnegotiables. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 711-

722. doi:10.1002/trtr.1882

von der Embse, Nathaniel P, Schoemann, A. M., Kilgus, S. P., Wicoff, M., & Bowler, M. (2017).

The influence of test-based accountability policies on teacher stress and instructional

practices: A moderated mediation model. Educational Psychology, 37(3), 312-20.

doi:10.1080/01443410.2016.1183766

Vygotsky, L. (1994). Academic concepts in school aged children. In R. van der Veer, & J.

Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 111-126). Oxford: Blackwell, (Original work

published 1934).

Wackerle-Hollman, A. K., Schmitt, B. A., Bradfield, T. A., Rodriguez, M. C., & McConnell, S.

R. (2015). Redefining individual growth and development indicators: Phonological

awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 495-510.

doi:10.1177/0022219413510181

259

Walan, S., & Rundgren, S. C. (2014). Investigating preschool and primary school teachers' self-

efficacy and needs in teaching science: A pilot study. CEPS Journal: Center for

Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 51-67. Retreived from http://www.diva-

portal.org/smash/get/diva2:787104/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Walker, J. L. (2012). The use of saturation in qualitative research. Canadian Journal of

Cardiovascular Nursing, 22(2), 37-41. Retrieved from www.cccn.ca

Weiner, S. (2004). Four first graders' descriptions of how they spell. In D. Norton (Ed.), The

effective teaching of language arts (5th ed.) (pp. 370-389). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Weiser, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling

performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best-evidence

synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 170-200.

doi:10.3102/0034654310396719

Weiser, B., Buss, C., Sheils, A. P., Gallegos, E., & Murray, L. R. (2019). Expert reading

coaching via technology: Investigating the reading, writing, and spelling outcomes of

students in grades K–8 experiencing significant reading learning disabilities. Annals of

Dyslexia, 69(1), 54-79. doi:10.1007/s11881-018-00175-1

Westwood, P. (2005). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment. Camberwell, Victoria:

Australian Council for Education Research.

Westwood, P. (2014). Spelling: Do the eyes have it? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties,

20(1), 3-13. doi:10.1080/19404158.2014.921632

260

Westwood, P. (2018). Learning to spell: Enduring theories, recent research and current

issues. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 23(2), 137-152.

doi:10.1080/19404158.2018.1524391

White, C. S., Fox, R. K., & Isenberg, J. P. (2011). Investigating teachers' professional learning in

an advanced master's degree programme. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4),

387-405. doi:10.1080/02619768.2011.587115

Whiteman, D. (2015). The surprising roots of the Common Core: How conservatives gave rise to

‘Obamacore.’ Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from

www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-

Common-Core_FINAL.pdf

Williams, K. J., Austin, C. R., & Vaughn, S. (2018). A synthesis of spelling interventions for

secondary students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 52(1), 3-15.

doi:10.1177/0022466917732777

Williams, K. J., Walker, M. A., Vaughn, S., & Wanzek, J. (2017). A synthesis of reading and

spelling interventions and their effects on spelling outcomes for students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(3), 286-297.

doi:10.1177/0022219415619753

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning

styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271. doi:10.1177/0098628315589505

Wolter, J. A., & Apel, K. (2010). Initial acquisition of mental graphemic representations in

children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing

Research: JSLHR, 53(1), 179-195. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0130)

261

Wolter, J. A., & Dilworth, V. (2014). The effects of a multilinguistic morphological awareness

approach for improving language and literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1),

76-85. doi:10.1177/0022219413509972

Wolter, J. A., & Green, L. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention in school-age children

with language and literacy deficits: A case study. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(1),

27-41. doi:10.1097/TLD.0b013e318280f5aa

Wood, C. P., & Connelly, V. (2009). Contemporary perspectives on reading and spelling. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The

Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067

Woodland, R. H. (2016). Evaluating PK–12 professional learning communities: An improvement

science perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(4), 505-521.

doi:10.1177/1098214016634203

Woulfin, S. L., Donaldson, M. L., & Gonzales, R. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator

evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 110-143.

doi:10.1177/0013161X15616661

Yarnall, L., & Fusco, J. (2014). Applying the brakes: How practical classroom decisions affect

the adoption of inquiry instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 52-57.

doi:10.2505/4/jcst14_043_06_52

Yeung, S. S., Liu, Y., & Lin, D. (2017). Growth of phonemic awareness and spelling in a second

language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 1-15.

doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1409695

262

Yeung, S. S., Siegel, L. S, & Chan, C. K. (2013). Effects of a phonological awareness program

on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Reading and

Writing. 26(5), 681-704. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9383-6

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the

evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues &

Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Young, K. (2007). Developmental stage theory of spelling: Analysis of consistency across four

spelling-related activities. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(3), 203-220.

Retrieved from www.alea.edu.au

Zannikos, M. E., McCallum, E., Schmitt, A. J., & Pearson, K. E. (2018). A comparison of the

taped spelling intervention and cover, copy, and compare for students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(3), 301-323. doi:10.1007/s10864-018-

9293-z

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom

processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years

of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981-1015.

doi:10.3102/0034654315626801

263

Zielinski, K., Mclaughlin, T. F., & Derby, K. M. (2012). The effect of "cover, copy, and

compare" on spelling accuracy of high school students with learning

disabilities. American Secondary Education, 41(1), 78-95. Retrieved from www.tntp.org

Zoski, J., & Erickson, K. (2017). Morpheme‐based instruction in kindergarten. The Reading

Teacher, 70(4), 491-496. doi:10.1002/trtr.1542

264

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Fresch’s (2003) Spelling Survey

Section 1—Demographics

1-1. Information about you:

• Current grade level(s) taught:

1 2 3 4 5 Reading Recovery LD Other____

• Your class size _________

• Number years teaching at current grade level ________

• Total number years teaching ______________

• Other grades taught and years at that level:

_________ grade for _______ years

_________ grade for _______ years

• Educational background:

B. S. B. S. + additional hours M. A. M. A. + additional hours

Ph. D. Ed. D.

1-2. Information about your school (Please give an estimate of numbers; even your “best guess”

will be helpful.)

• Name of district (include city and state) _________________________________ • Population

of your district: ___________

• District size:

Number of buildings _______ Total students ________

• Your building’s total number of students: __________

• Description of your building:

Setting: Urban Suburban Rural

Type: Public Private Catholic

• Percent of students receiving free lunch (ADC): _________

Section 2—Current Spelling Instructional Practices

265

2-1. Purchased programs (complete if you purchase a program)

Basal speller - title, publisher, and year of publication ___________________________

___________________________

Word lists - title, publisher, and year of publication _____________________________

_________________________

2-2. How current program was selected: _____District curriculum committee _____Building

curriculum committee _____Grade level decision

_____Each teacher selects own program

2-3. Percent of words studied that are from:

Basal speller _______%

Purchased lists _______%

Teacher selection _______% (source ____________________) Student selection _______%

(source_____________________)

2-4. Number of words students responsible for learning each week_____

2-5. Class time (in minutes) spent each week on spelling _____________

2-6. How you report spelling grades (circle all that apply)

Separate grade Letter grade (A-E) Percentage (0%-100%) Narrative report

Part of Language Arts grade

Letter grade (O, S, N)

Checklist of specific skills Other________________________

2-7. Please describe your reading instruction program (Purchased?

Literature based? Homogenous grouping? How are skills taught? Share whatever best

describes what you do to instruct reading.) ___________________________________

For sections 2-8 through 2-12, please rate EACH item as it applies to your WEEKLY

PROGRAM: (Use “other” blanks if what you do is not listed, or to provide further

information.)

2-8. Organization for spelling

instruction Always

Most of the

time

About half the

time

Not very

often Never

Weekly list with various activities 5 4 3 2 1

Class mini-lessons 5 4 3 2 1

Small group mini-lessons 5 4 3 2 1

One-on-one 5 4 3 2 1

266

Other____________________________ 5 4 3 2 1

2-9. Organization for assigning words

for study

Always Most of the

time

About half the

time

Not very

often Never

Whole class 5 4 3 2 1

Ability groups 5 4 3 2 1

Individualized 5 4 3 2 1

Other____________________________ 5 4 3 2 1

2-10. Organization for selecting words

for study

Always Most of the

time

About half the

time

Not very

often Never

By spelling patterns 5 4 3 2 1

Grade level list

(below, at, and/or above) 5 4 3 2 1

From areas of curriculum 5 4 3 2 1

From student suggestions 5 4 3 2 1

From students’ own writings 5 4 3 2 1

Other____________________________ 5 4 3 2 1

2-12. Current spelling assessment(s)

used

Always Most of

the time

About

half the

time

Not

very

often

Never

Beginning of year evaluation (describe:

________________________________) 5 4 3 2 1

Standardized testing (which one? _____

________________________________) 5 4 3 2 1

Weekly post test 5 4 3 2 1

Mid or end of year post test 5 4 3 2 1

Through analysis of students’ writings 5 4 3 2 1

Other ___________________________

_________________________________ 5 4 3 2 1

2-11. Activities to practice words Always Most of the

time

About half the

time

Not very

often Never

Practice sheets 5 4 3 2 1

Spelling games (Example:

___________) 5 4 3 2 1

Word sorting 5 4 3 2 1

Word wall 5 4 3 2 1

Dictionary work 5 4 3 2 1

Other

___________________________ 5 4 3 2 1

267

Section 3 – Theoretical orientation. Read the following statements and circle the responses

that reflect your beliefs.

3-1. Spelling words should come from students’ own writings.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-2. Teacher testing is more effective than peer testing when measuring achievement in spelling.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-3 It is important to plan spelling activities that use cooperative learning.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-4 Spelling textbooks are efficient tools for helping students develop spelling skills.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-5 Students should be grouped by developmental stage for spelling instruction.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-6 A standard should be set at each grade level designating which spelling words a student must

master.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-7 Students should self-select some of their words to study.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

268

3-8 Assigning all students one common word list is an effective way to manage spelling

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-9 Writing spelling words several times helps students remember them.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-10. Students’ invented spellings are a reflection of their developmental stage.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-11. When students request the spelling of a word, the teacher should tell them to sound it out.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-12. Spelling instruction should include how to analyze words through activities such as word

sorting.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-13. Spelling is best taught when integrated with writing.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-14. Assessment of students’ writing is an effective way to guide spelling instruction.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

269

3-15. Formal spelling instruction is needed to ensure adequate development of skills.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-16 Students should use manipulatives to help solidify concepts about spelling.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-17. Teaching a rule such as “when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking” is an

effective strategy to help students remember how to spell words.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

3-18. Personal spelling journals are an effective way for students to relate writing to spelling.

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

5....................... 4 ........................ 3 ........................ 2 ......................... 1

Section 4 - Educational Issues

4-1. In the teaching of spelling, one of my major instructional concerns is:

4-2. The biggest spelling problem for students at the grade level I currently teach is:

4-3. Any other issues you would like to add:

Fresch, M. J. (2003). A national survey of spelling instruction: Investigating teachers’ beliefs and

practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(3), 819-848.

270

Appendix B: E-mail Permission to Reprint Fresch’s (2003) Survey

271

Appendix C: Demographic Questionnaire

What year were you born?

What best describes your race? (check one or more boxes)

__American Indian

__Asian

__Black or African American

__Native Hawaiian

__Hispanic or Latino

__White

What was the major, minor, and/or special emphasis of your undergraduate degree?

If applicable, what was major, minor, and/or special emphasis of your graduate degree?

What type of teaching certification do you hold?

What, if any, trainings or classes have you attended that discussed spelling instruction?

272

Appendix D: Fresch’s Survey Divided by Spelling Approach or Activity

Question Approach

3-1. Spelling words should come from students’ own writings. Incidental

3-2. Teacher testing is more effective than peer testing when

measuring achievement in spelling.

Traditional

3-3 It is important to plan spelling activities that use

cooperative learning.

Pedagogical Activity

3-4 Spelling textbooks are efficient tools for helping students

develop spelling skills.

Traditional

3-5 Students should be grouped by developmental stage for

spelling instruction.

Developmental Word Study

3-6 A standard should be set at each grade level designating

which spelling words a student must master.

Traditional or Standards-

based (could be both

depending on context)

3-7 Students should self-select some of their words to study.

Developmental or incidental

(could be either depending

on context)

3-8 Assigning all students one common word list is an

effective way to manage spelling

Traditional

3-9 Writing spelling words several times helps students

remember them.

Traditional

3-10. Students’ invented spellings are a reflection of their

developmental stage.

Developmental Word Study

3-11. When students request the spelling of a word, the teacher

should tell them to sound it out.

Phonics Activity

3-12. Spelling instruction should include how to analyze words

through activities such as word sorting.

Developmental Word Study

3-13. Spelling is best taught when integrated with writing. Incidental

3-14. Assessment of students’ writing is an effective way to

guide spelling instruction.

Incidental

3-15. Formal spelling instruction is needed to ensure adequate

development of skills.

Traditional

3-16 Students should use manipulatives to help solidify

concepts about spelling.

Pedagogical Activity

3-17. Teaching a rule such as “when two vowels go walking,

the first one does the talking” is an effective strategy to help

students remember how to spell words.

Phonics Activity

3-18. Personal spelling journals are an effective way for

students to relate writing to spelling.

Incidental or Developmental

Word Study

273

Appendix E: Examples of Fresch’s (2003) Survey with Means, Modes, and Ranges

*This type of comparison was completed for the entire survey. However, as it is lengthy, only

the first two schoolwide comparisons are shown below.

Section 3: Theoretical Orientation

3-1 Lincoln Spelling should come from students’ writing

School Average Mean: 2.875 Mode: 3, Range: 2-3.5

Teacher Average Mean: 2.5 Mode: 2, 3

Specialist Average 3

Principal Average 3.5

3-1 Washington Spelling should come from students’ writing

School Average Mean: 4.33 Mode: 5 Range: 3-5

Teacher Average Mean: 4 Mode: 4 Range: 3-5

Specialist Average 5

Principal Average 5

3-1 Jackson Spelling should come from students’ writing.

School Average Mean: 2.8 Mode: 3 Range: 1-3

Teacher Average Mean: 2.75 Mode: 3 Range: 1-3

Specialist Average 3

Principal Average 3

3-2 Lincoln Teacher testing more effective than peer testing

School Average Mean: 4.25 Mode: 4 Range: 4-5

Teacher Average Mean: 4 Mode: 4 Range: 4

Specialist Average 5

Principal Average 4

3-2 Washington Teacher testing more effective than peer testing

School Average Mean: 3.7 Mode: 3 Range: 3-5

Teacher Average Mean: 4 Mode: 3, 5 Range: 3-5

Specialist Average 3

Principal 3

3-2 Jackson Teacher testing more effective than peer testing

School Average Mean: 4 No Mode Range: 3-5

Teacher Average Mean: 4.25 Mode: 5 Range: 3-5

Specialist Average 3

Principal Average 4

274

Appendix F: Observation Form

Time: ______________________ School:__________________________

Participant:__________________ Date: ____________________________

Descriptive Notes Analytic Memo Reflective Notes

*This form was filled out electronically. To ensure confidentiality, it will be password protected.

275

Appendix G: Ashley’s Observation Form (Example)

Time: _____1:10-3:05___________ School:_______Washington___________

Participant:________Ashley________ Date: _______2/19/2020_______

Descriptive Notes

Begins with a grammar exercise.

(Weekly Language Review:

Wednesday). They work on it first

independently and then go over

answers. Ashley: “How would I

spell armadillos if I am making it a

possessive noun?” Students raise

hands to answer. Then it becomes

future tense and she asks about

past tense. “Same root word.”

Underline the adjectives in the

sentence. “Thumbs up if you agree

with ______(student name)”.

Other students give the adjectives.

Then discuss simple and complex

sentences. Then there are 3 words,

the students have to choose the

correct spelling for similar.

“I see a lot of run-on sentences…

[describes a run-on sentence].”

She has them write the definition

for a run-on sentence.

[Took 12 minutes].

Then they transition to their

Avalanche texts, where they are

comparing their texts. She tells

students they are allowed to come

up to the carpet if they want to.

“When it comes to the state test,

you will have to look at multiple

sources. We will be doing test

prep, 10 minutes here and there, to

prepare us.”

“Who can tell us what we did

yesterday?” We summarized our

Analytic Memo

Students are actively

participating.

Classroom management

is excellent. Transitions

are fast and students

remained engaged.

She has a very positive

tone: “I love all this

participation.”

Reflective Notes

[During a break she told me

she got the language review

from Teachers Pay Teachers

to supplement the

curriculum].

I wonder how much the

warm-up spelling practice

transfers into student writing?

276

paragraphs. Now we are going to

do the same thing with our second

source. We already numbered our

paragraphs. We are only going to

do this for 10 minutes and then we

are going to get into our core

lesson.

Reminded them not to be

highlighter happy. “We are going

to listen for important

information.” [Starts reading].

“Where else have we read this

information?” [Occasionally

defines words they read.]

“Take 30 seconds and work with

your shoulder partner about what

should be highlighted?”

Calls on students to suggest what

was most important.

Then she writes down an answer

on their paper and the students

copy it down. If I had a question,

about what causes an avalanche, I

would look at source 2.

Then continues to look through the

rest of the passage.

“So, tomorrow, I am going to give

you a question where you are

going to have to pull evidence

from both sources. You will work

with a partner but you will have to

pull evidence.”

“Go back to your seats, these can

go in your green folders, and I

need my student leaders to pass

out what we are going to do next.”

“Also tomorrow, we are going to

practice logging into schoology.”

Sets Purpose and helps them

make connections.

277

“Who can remind me of three

story elements we have discussed

in mysteries?”

[Discussion takes place about the

setting, plot, and characters in the

last story they finished (Clubhouse

Mysteries).]

She gave them 30 seconds to

discuss theme in Clubhouse

Mysteries. Then she cold-called

students. Two students did not

know. She told everyone to

discuss it again. Then she cold-

called students again (the same

ones she had tried to call before

and then a few others).

“Today we are going to talk about

setting. Everyone stand-up. If I

am thinking of 3 key settings in

Clubhouse Mysteries, where

would they be?”

Students then move to where they

think the most important scene.

They then need to support their

answers.

Briefly discussed when they write

their own short mystery stories

and their point-of-view. “What

would you see if Ziggy were

telling the story?”

We are going to focus on these six

boxes. She tells them to be

specific about what they saw in the

settings. “I want to be able to read

your descriptions and be able to

picture it in my head.”

Reviews expectations about

partner work (they will choose

their partner; she picks a stick and

that person can choose their

She frequently asks

questions; if a student

can’t answer in-depth,

she asks prompting

questions. If they

struggle, she lets them

“phone a friend.”

Several students jumped

around while students

were talking.

She has great systems to help

with transitions. (“I need

everyone settled in 5; I need

everyone settled in 4; I need

everyone settled in 3; I need

everyone settled in 2…)

This activity activated schema

because in next activity

(worksheet), the students need

to write the main settings and

support why they think it was

important.

278

partner first). Gives a 10-minute

frame. ESL students who do not

speak English were given an IPAD

with Google translate to help them

understand what is said. Then has

the students return to the carpet

with their work. They went over

the settings and filled it out. They

kept it out so that they can draw a

picture. They then had a 3-minute

brain break before independent

reading. During that time,

students needed to get books if

they need a new one and be

prepared for independent reading.

Independent Reading: She calls a

student back and he has to discuss

what he is reading. He discusses

the page he is on in his current

book and starts to read. He reads a

line and she asked him what a

specific word means that he read.

He could not answer; so, she told

him the definition. She also asked

him the meaning of several words.

The student was able to answer

them. “Do you remember your

power goal?” We are trying to

finish a chapter book a week.

For the next student, she pulls out

a cold read passage for her to read

(from ARC text-kept right beside

her chair with other lists of

words). The student has to make

an inference as to what has

happened so far and about the

feeling of a character. Then she

has to look at a list of words and

tell her a word she knows and says

what it means. She then gives the

next power goal.

After the goal, they draw the

setting.

The students are on-task

and reading as they are

supposed to [her

classroom management

is impressive].

She has a high expectation for

academic Rigor.

279

Appendix H: Emma’s Observation Forms (Example)

Time: ___10:10-11:10__________ School:_____Lincoln___________

Participant:____Emma___________ Date: ___3/10/21________________

Descriptive Notes

She puts up the stations and

the students move to the

various rotations.

The group with her discusses

fact and opinion. Then they

complete a Reader’s Theater.

She has several parts and the

other students have several

parts. She sets the purpose:

“You want to make sure you

pay attention to periods,

commas, and punctuation.”

The group at the back,

watches a video with a list of

definitions on the same

words that are the same as

their spelling words. For

instance, address and

address.

At the teamwork table:

students read a fluency

passage and highlight

important details. One

student reads the passage

aloud and they highlight the

passages.

There is music playing in the

background with a timer on

the screen. There is 15

minutes at each station. At a

2 minute mark, the music

changes; at 40 seconds, the

music changes agai

Analytic Memo

The students are engaged and

typically on task. However,

depending on the student

groups, they may be more off-

task.

The list of spelling words

aligned with linguistic method

as it focused on spelling rules

and phonological sounds

Reflective Notes

The spelling video focused on

developing understanding of

spelling words. She created it

herself; the activity was

passive instead of active but

akin to her interview, it let’s

her provide instruction to

more than one group at a

time.

280

When students at their seat

are finished with their

station, they go back to their

seat to work on independent

work.

Time: __Independent Work_____ School:_____Lincoln___________

Participant:____Emma___________ Date: ___5/12/21________________

Descriptive Notes:

Lesson Plan (as written by Emma):

• Lesson Video

• Vocabulary Work- Spin & Do

o Spin and Do: Students

use the spinner. They

will choose a word to

complete with the

activity spun. Students

write their word and task

on their recording sheet.

• Independent Work- Read 10

minutes a book of your choice

(different than Wonder)

o On Portfolio let me

know what pages you

read by writing in the

text

• Spelling Video:

https://youtu.be/Umr1hXvGxcM

• Spelling Work: 1st Choice from

Spelling Menu

Analytic Memo

This assignment was

completed

independently.

Reflective Notes

The assignments aligned

with her activities seen

in class. The video

focused on suffixes,

which aligned with her

lists. The attention to

word parts aligns with

the multi-linguistic

approach to spelling.

The choice board aligns

with her interview as she

discussed the

importance of

manipulatives and

hands-on activities.

Her curriculum included

activities such as writing

words in shaving cream,

which coincides with the

choice board.

281

Appendix I: Artifacts from Emma’s Independent Spelling Lessons

May 11-May 13 ELA and Spelling Lesson Plans:

282

Appendix J: Fieldwork Observation Log

Date Time Frame School Classroom

9/27/2019 9:30-10:30

3:05-3:35

Washington Jasmine

9/30/2019 9:30-10:30

3:05-3:35

Washington Jasmine

10/1/2019 9:30-10:30

3:05-3:30

Washington Jasmine

10/17/2019 1:10-3:05 Washington Dawn

10/21/2019 1:10-3:00 Washington Dawn

10/23/2019 1:10-3:00 Washington Dawn

11/12/2019 9:15-10:15

2:55-3:25

Washington Samantha

11/14/2019 9:15-10:15

2:55-3:25

Washington Samantha

11/18/2019 2:55-3:25

(The morning was solely research on

her weather unit; the afternoon is when

all spelling instruction took place-so I

solely observed her afternoon block for

the third observation)

Washington Samantha

2/10/20 1:10-3:10 Washington Ashley

2/11/20 1:10-3:00 Washington Ashley

2/12/20 1:10-2:50 Washington Ashley

10/25/2019 9:00-11:00 Jackson Mary

10/28/2019 9:00-10:00 Jackson Mary

10/29/2019 9:00-10:00 Jackson Mary

11/5/2019 10:00-10:30 Jackson Joanna

11/6/2019 10:00-10:30 Jackson Joanna

11/8/2019 10:00-10:30 Jackson Joanna

283

12/3/2019 9:30-10:30 Jackson Kayla

12/4/2019 9:30-10:30 Jackson Kayla

12/5/2019 9:30-10:30 Jackson Kayla

12/3/2019 2:15-3:25 Jackson Andrew

12/4/2019 2:15-3:30 Jackson Andrew

12/5/2019 2:15-3:30 Jackson Andrew

12/4/2019 8:55-9:20 Lincoln LeAnne

12/8//2019 9:00-9:20 Lincoln LeAnne

1/16/2020 9:00-9:20 Lincoln LeAnne

3/10/2020 10:10-11:10 Lincoln Emma

5/11/2020;

5/12/2020

5/13/2020

5/14/2020

5/15/2020

Independent (collected activities and

plans)

Lincoln Emma

284

Appendix K: Educator Codes per School

Educator’s Name Educator’s Code

Michelle WP

Sarah WLE

Samantha WT3L

Jasmine WT3N

Ashley WT4L

Dawn WT4N

Mathew JP

Jessica JLE

Mary JT3L

Kayla JT3N

Joanna JT4L

Andrew JT4N

Katie LP

Marissa LLE

Emma LT3

LeAnne LT4

285

Appendix L: Example of NVivo Coding for Washington Before Pile Compilations

286

287

Appendix M: Coding Amounts from NVivo After Pile Compilation

Individual Strands:

Strands Grouped by Category:

288

Appendix N: NVivo Interview Examples with Codes or Memos

Samantha: (WT3L)

Marissa (LLE)

Jasmine

289

Appendix O: Lincoln Thematic Model Reflective Memoing

I began the thematic model process by looking at themes, word piles, observations, and

codes of all three schools. Then with NVivo still open, I got a piece of paper and pen in hand

and started to draw concept maps. Each school was vastly different. Yet, I initially tried to create

one thematic model for all three schools. I drew a variety of models but crossed them out as I

could not bypass the fact the DOE and the state test played a huge role in curricular choices in

the public schools. Two models were needed. I threw away my first drawings and began afresh.

The first model I decided to create was for Lincoln. I once again reviewed themes, word piles,

observations, and codes specific to Lincoln. I drew teacher instruction in the center of the paper,

circled it, and started my first spoke coming out of it, curriculum.

Curriculum. This component interested me; I had not given it much thought before I

started coding. Lessons were essentially curriculum being enacted. Furthermore, there were

large differences in how curriculum was chosen and implemented in Lincoln in comparison to

the public schools. So, I started to think about the process through which the last ELA

curriculum was chosen at Lincoln. The teachers talked with administration about their

unhappiness with the current curriculum. DIBLES scores and the Spelling Inventory Assessment

were reviewed. As a group, the reading specialist, teachers, and administration worked together

to price programs and search for something they believed would be beneficial. During the

summer, they met, looked at options, and chose one. The ELA curriculum did not extend to

fourth grade, but the teacher was okay keeping her current curriculum; thus, she did not make a

change.

When spelling curriculum was chosen, similar steps were made with the second-grade

teacher spearheading the change. However, parents were left out of the decision. The Orton-

290

Gillingham inspired spelling curriculum was a large deviation from past curriculum;

administration realized they made a misstep by not informing parents; as complaints came forth,

they worked towards amending the limited communication. After looking at data in NVivo once

again, finances, student achievement/knowledge, parents, administration, and teachers

knowledge and pedagogy could be supported as influencers of curriculum choice.

Once the influencers behind curriculum was in place for the Lincoln model, I looked at

instruction and kept asking and answering questions. What influenced the instruction in addition

to curriculum? According to the data, students and teachers influenced it. What about my

observations? What did I see? How was it different between the rooms? How was it the same?

Emma used centers and her spelling lists had words based on prefixes, suffixes, and special

sounds. LeAnne mostly did whole group but individualized lessons for struggling spellers. The

reading specialist individualized for students as needed. Emma solely individualized by

shortening lists based on identified needs; LeAnne used a different curriculum and may shorten

lists based on a pre-test.

Does anything in the data show why these approaches may be used? Emma is teaching

herself her curriculum, and this is her first-year teaching. LeAnne had previously been taught

Sitton Spelling, is currently working with the school’s reading specialist for another intervention

and has a passion for students with special needs. Over the years, she has consistently met with

struggling learners to help scaffold instruction. Does data from the interviews also support this?

Yes, my next influencer, teacher training and beliefs, was written on the map.

The self-questioning and answering continued. What about pedagogical beliefs? Do

they also influence instruction? Once again, thinking about the interviews and observations,

Emma discussed the importance of using hands-on techniques. During her independent

291

assignments, she gave students hands-on activities (e.g., writing words in shaving cream, using

magnetic letters, etc.). LeAnne believed in modifying assignments for her struggling spellers.

She also wanted things to be hands-on, but her hands-on assignments may look different from

Emma’s. LeAnne had students write rainbow words and liked to have boxes for students to

write and see the different shapes. So, yes, pedagogical beliefs should be included in the map.

Before Emma, I had interviewed the previous third grade teacher. However, she

transferred over the summer before I could complete my observations. She had communicated

she wanted to get rid of spelling but could not do so without the administrative approval.

Therefore, I looked once again through the data for comments about the administration. The

teachers and literacy expert stated the admin wants them to teach spelling and trusts they [the

teachers] will use their knowledge and training. Therefore, even though administration was not

discussed frequently by either the teacher or the literacy specialist, they play a part.

Administration gives them a high degree of teacher autonomy, expects them to teach spelling,

leaves lesson plan formatting to individual teachers, and talks with them about curricular

concerns (as they arise). These components together influenced how the lessons are planned and

taught.

Thus, on my paper, my thematic model was taking shape. The final component I thought

about was the students (one of the school’s themes). Did the student influence instruction; if so,

how? During observations, Emma tried to keep students engaged with videos and hands-on

activities, but content was only changed for students who met with the reading specialist.

LeAnne changed content more frequently but her on and above average students would work

independently on curriculum-based worksheets, which allowed her to meet with students for

individualized instruction. Overall, spelling content and pacing were changed in LeAnne and

292

Emma’s class for struggling readers. Activities were adapted in Emma’s class for engagement

and groups were changed to help with behavior management. So, yes, students may also

influence daily instruction.

A rough draft of my thematic map for Lincoln was now complete. To ensure correctness,

I triangulated the data to ensure accuracy and completeness. The numbers supported my map.

Once I finished this map and wrote the report with evidence, I started the process again for the

public schools.

293

Appendix P: IRB Initial and Extension Approval

IRB Extension Approval Email:

Good Morning Krista, Thank you for submitting your annual review form for our review and documentation. As indicated on your completed form, data collection and analysis for your study will continue as approved until September 2020. Please contact the IRB if you have any questions. Best,

294

Appendix Q: General Letter to Public School District

Dear _________________________,

Hello, my name is Krista Tennefoss, and I am working on my dissertation through Liberty

University. Therefore, I am writing to see if it would be possible to use a school in (School

District’s Name) as a site for my research? If district permission is granted, I kindly request to

use (Name of school) as a site in my study. I have already established a relationship with

(Principal’s name), and he/she indicated a willingness to be a site for my study contingent upon

district approval.

My study is a multiple case study focusing on spelling instruction. Specifically, I am interested

in how environmental factors (e.g., curriculum, administrative and district requirements, national

and state policies, student academic levels, etc.) interact with personal factors (e.g., teacher

content knowledge) to influence spelling instruction. Therefore, I will study three districts and

interview the principal, literacy specialist, and 2 third and 2 fourth grade teachers. The

participants will also take a spelling survey, and I will complete three observations during the

ELA time block. The lesson plans and materials (e.g., worksheets) will be scanned and saved to

a password protected document. Also, I will review the curriculum to determine the

curriculum’s approach to spelling. Each teacher will receive a $40 gift card and the

administrator and literacy specialist will receive a $20 gift card as a thank-you.

As the focus of my study is teachers, I will not collect student samples, take notes on students,

nor interact with them. Rather, I will have a periphery role. As a result, the International

Review Board does not require parent permission. However, if you allow me to use a school in

your district and would like me to write an informational letter to parents or obtain parent

permission, I would be completely willing to oblige.

I would be happy to talk with your further or clarify any questions. I know each district has

different policies as far as permission for research. Would you please let me know the process

that must be completed for (School District’s Name)?

Thank-you so much for your time,

Krista Tennefoss

ktennefo@liberty.edu

295

Appendix R: Teacher and Literacy Expert Interview Protocol

Participant #: _________________________________

Place: ________________________________________

Time:_________________________________________

Recording: Two recorders will be used.

Teacher and Literacy Expert Questions:

1. Explain in-service opportunities or literacy classes you have had that discussed spelling

instruction.

2. What was spelling class like when you were in elementary school?

3. How has your approach to spelling changed or stayed the same over the years?

4. How do you believe spelling is acquired or learned?

5. What kinds of spelling activities do you consider to be particularly ineffective? Why?

6. What kinds of spelling activities do you consider effective? Why?

7. In general, how do you believe that information is learned most effectively?

8. When working with students who struggle with spelling, how effective do you believe spelling

instruction will be? Please explain.

9. How do you motivate students to complete spelling activities when they are uninterested?

10. How, if at all, do you believe educators can help instill a value for spelling into the lives of

their students?

11. What two factors do you believe have the greatest influence on spelling instruction in your

classroom? Please explain.

12. What lesson plan format is used for literacy in this school?

13. What curriculum do you use for spelling and do you believe it is effective? Why or why not?

14. If you wanted to change your instructional approach to spelling, how would you go about it?

296

15. Explain how, if at all, student behavior or knowledge is used when planning spelling.

16. How, if at all, do you differentiate in spelling for students with special needs, including

students with learning disabilities or gifted students?

17. How, if at all, does state testing or state standards affect your instructional choices?

18. Imagine that spelling was its own special, like art, and you became the teacher of that class.

Therefore, spelling is all you taught all day long. What would you do differently or keep the

same in your class and why?

19. How do other teachers in your grade-level teach spelling?

20. If you had a literacy question specifically pertaining to spelling, who would you ask and

why?

21. How does your administration expect spelling to be taught?

22. Describe your relationship with your principal and vice-principal.

23. Is there anything additional you’d like to share, or you feel I should ask, about this topic?

297

Appendix S: Principal Interview Protocol

Participant #: _________________________________

Place: ________________________________________

Time:_________________________________________

Questions:

1. In your district and in your school, how are in-service decisions made?

2. How often are you expected to observe teachers?

3. If applicable, what does the district expect to occur during the ELA time block?

4. What do you feel are the top three district expectation of a principal?

5. What do you feel are the top three district expectations of teachers?

6. What do you believe is your role with the instructional practices of teachers?

7. What do you believe is the purpose of classroom observations?

8. How would you describe your relationship with the teachers?

9. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing literacy teachers?

10. What components are you looking for when you enter literacy classrooms?

11. What, if anything, do you expect to see with spelling instruction?

12. If you had to pick the top two influencers of teacher practice in spelling instruction, what

would they be and why?

298

Appendix T: Consent Form for Teacher

299

300

Appendix U: Consent Form for Principals

301

302

Appendix V: Consent Form for Literacy Expert

303

304

Appendix W: Recruitment Letter for Private School Principal

Dear (principal),

As a graduate student in the School of Education at Liberty University, I am conducting research

as part of the requirements for a doctorate degree in curriculum and instruction. The purpose of

my research is to increase understanding of how environmental factors (such as, state testing,

district expectations, curriculum, etc.) and personal factors (such as, content knowledge) help to

influence and shape spelling instruction. I am writing to invite you to participate in my study.

I talked with you earlier about my study, but I am just writing to formally ask if you would allow

me to use (Insert school’s name) as a site for my research and to invite you to participate in my

study.

As an elementary education principal, I would ask to have a 30-minute interview with you and

for you to fill out a spelling survey and a demographic survey that will take approximately 30

minutes to complete. I will also ask that you review your interview transcript (10 minutes). My

goal is to capture educator thoughts, perspectives, and practices in spelling. Your name and/or

other identifying information will be requested as part of your participation, but this information

will remain confidential

As a principal, I understand you are very busy. Therefore, you will receive a $20 gift card at the

end of the study as a thank-you. Your time is worth so much more than I can pay, but your

participation will also be a valuable addition to research and findings could lead to greater public

understanding of classroom practices.

If you would be so kind as to e-mail me to let me know if you would or would not be willing to

participate by [date] to schedule an interview. I have attached the consent form, which has a

formal and thorough explanation of the study. Please sign and return the consent form to me

when we meet for the interview. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks!

Krista Tennefoss

Liberty University

305

Appendix X: Recruitment Letter for Public School Principal

Dear (principal),

As a graduate student in the School of Education at Liberty University, I am conducting research

as part of the requirements for a doctorate degree in curriculum and instruction. The purpose of

my research is to increase understanding of how environmental factors (such as, state testing,

district expectations, curriculum, etc.) and personal factors (such as, content knowledge) help to

influence and shape spelling instruction. I am writing to invite you to participate in my study.

I talked with you earlier about my study, but I am just writing to formally ask if you would allow

me to use (Insert school’s name) as a site for my research. I have obtained district permission

from (Superintendent’s name or assistant superintendent’s name).

As a principal, I would kindly ask that you meet with me to help brainstorm 2 third-grade

teachers, 2 fourth grade teachers, and a literacy expert that may be willing to participate.

Additionally, I would ask to have a 30-minute interview with you, for you to fill out a spelling

survey that will take 20-30 minutes to complete and review an interview transcript (10 minutes).

My goal is to capture educator thoughts, perspectives, and practices in spelling. Your name

and/or other identifying information will be requested as part of your participation, but this

information will remain confidential.

As a principal, I understand you are very busy. Therefore, you will receive a $20 gift card at the

end of the study as a thank-you. Your time is worth so much more than I can pay, but your

participation will also be a valuable addition to research and findings could lead to greater public

understanding of classroom practices.

If you would be so kind as to e-mail me to let me know if you would or would not be willing to

participate by [date]. I have attached the consent form, which has a formal and thorough

explanation of the study. Please sign and return the consent form to me when I meet with you to

discuss possible participants. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks!

306

Appendix Y: Recruitment Letter for Teachers

Dear (educator),

As a graduate student in the School of Education at Liberty University, I am conducting research

as part of the requirements for a doctorate degree in curriculum and instruction. The purpose of

my research is to increase understanding of how environmental factors (such as, state testing,

district expectations, curriculum, etc.) and personal factors (such as, content knowledge) help to

influence and shape spelling instruction. I am writing to invite you to participate in my study.

If you are 18 years of age or older, teach third or fourth grade English language arts at [school’s

name], and are willing to participate, you will be asked to participate in interviews, surveys,

observations, and review your interview transcript. The surveys will take approximately 30

minutes. The interview will take around 60 minutes, and I will observe your spelling or ELA

time block 3 times (30-90 minutes each). Transcript reviews will take approximately 10

minutes. (Principal’s name) suggested that you may be in an ideal position to give valuable first-

hand information from your own perspective. Your name and/or other identifying information

will be requested as part of your participation, but this information will remain confidential.

As a teacher, I understand you are very busy. Therefore, you will receive a $20 gift card if you

sign up for the study, which will be given to you when I collect the consent form. Additionally,

you will receive another $20 gift card at the end of the study. Your time is worth so much more

than I can pay, but your participation will also be a valuable addition to research and findings

could lead to greater public understanding of classroom practices.

If you would be so kind as to e-mail me to let me know if you would or would not be willing to

participate by [date]. If you agree to participate, we will then schedule an interview. I have

attached the consent form, which has a formal and thorough explanation of the study. Please sign

the consent form, and I will collect it after school hours on a mutually agreeable day or at the

time of the interview. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks!

307

Appendix Z: Recruitment Letter for Literacy Experts

Dear (literacy expert),

As a graduate student in the School of Education at Liberty University, I am conducting research

as part of the requirements for a doctorate degree in curriculum and instruction. The purpose of

my research is to increase understanding of how environmental factors (such as, state testing,

district expectations, curriculum, etc.) and personal factors (such as, content knowledge) help to

influence and shape spelling instruction. I am writing to invite you to participate in my study.

If you are 18 years of age or older, work as a literacy specialist at [school’s name], and are

willing to participate, you will be asked to participate in an interview, spelling survey, and

demographic survey. You will also be asked to review your interview transcript (10 minutes).

(Principal name) suggested that you may be in an ideal position to give valuable first-hand

information from your own perspective. The surveys will take approximately 30 minutes. The

interview will take around 60 minutes. Your name and/or other identifying information will be

requested as part of your participation, but this information will remain confidential

As an educator, I understand you are very busy. Therefore, you will receive a $20 gift card at the

end of the study as a thank-you. Your time is worth so much more than I can pay, but your

participation will also be a valuable addition to research and findings could lead to greater public

understanding of classroom practices.

If you would be so kind as to e-mail me to let me know if you would or would not be willing to

participate by [date]. If you agree to participate, we will then schedule an interview. I have

attached the consent form, which has a formal and thorough explanation of the study. Please

sign the consent form, and I will collect it at the interview. If you have any questions, please do

not hesitate to ask.

Thanks!