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.
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
287
Appendix M: Coding Amounts from NVivo After Pile Compilation
Individual Strands:
Strands Grouped by Category:
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
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?
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!
Top Related