Brooks & Weeks, 1998

/ A Comparison of the Responsesof Dyslexic, Slow Learning and

Control Children to DifferentStrategies for Teaching SpellingsP. L. Brooks and S. A. J. Weeks*

Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre, Farnham, UK

Much research has been devoted to the development of literacy skillsand to detailing processes in the early acquisition of reading andwriting. However, little research in this area has linked cognitiveprofiles with teaching methods. This work viewed children who wereunderachieving given their cognitive status, those who were learningslowly and children experiencing no difficulties. The results indicatedsignificant differences between the dyslexic, slow learning andnormal control children, with the dyslexics performing best withvisual/semantic methods and the slow learners with phonic methods.However, both groups improved less than the controls. The findingssuggest the importance of teachers adjusting their teaching to suit thechilds cognitive profile in order that success in learning will beoptimized. ? 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dyslexia 4: 212222 (1998)

Keywords: dyslexia; slow learner; phonics; multisensory teaching

INTRODUCTION

ver the last decade there has been considerable interest in the acquisition of

the skills of reading and writing, and models have been developed to describe? 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Othe processes. It has become recognized that phonological processing is akey to the development of reading (Goswami and Bryant, 1990). Phonological codesare mapped onto the orthographic units of letters and words (Adams, 1990; VanOrden, Pennington and Stone, 1990; Ehri, 1992). Following on from this interest inthe normal developmental process comes the question of whether children experi-encing difficulties simply are slower at developing their skills or whether they developthem in a different way.

Examination of the malfunctioning of a system can help reveal the details of thesystem itself. Research to examine deficient or slow acquisition of reading and spelling

*Correspondence to: Sally Weeks, Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre, Frensham, Farnham, SurreyGU10 3BW.

DYSLEXIA VOL 4 212222CCC 10769242/98/04021211 $17.50

should provide rich evidence of the processes involved, as well as giving clues as tohow to enrich the development of these skills which are highly valued in our society.Work has focused on dyslexic childrens literacy development and has revealedweaknesses in phonological awareness through the use of tasks such as syllable

Different Strategies for Teaching Spelling 213tapping, rhyming, blending and spoonerisms, as well as in phonological processingusing tasks such as non-word repetition and reading (Olson et al., 1990; Pumfrey andReason, 1991). Weaknesses in verbal memory in dyslexics have been noted (Rugel,1974). Since dyslexics are likely to be phonologically weak, it has been postulated thatthey might use visual and meaning-based memory codes when attempting to read orspell. Hulme (1981) found that problems in phonological short-term memory codingin dyslexics resulted in them using visual codes such as are found in deaf children.Rack (1985) found that dyslexic children had less easy access to phonological codes inmemory and compensated for this by the use of visual or orthographic codes.

If visual techniques can effectively aid literacy acquisition, it seems reasonable toquestion whether there are other sensory modalities which will also help the dyslexicto gain literacy skills. Multisensory methods indicate that the combining of visual,tactile, meaningful and phonemic codes can successfully assist the learning of spellingsfor dyslexic children (Gillingham and Stillman, 1956; Hickey, 1978; Cowdery et al.,19831985). Hulme (1981) and Hulme, Monk and Ives (1987) examined the effects oftracing on learning associations between letters and their names, letters and abstractforms, and nouns and abstract forms in normal children. It was concluded that tracingfacilitated paired-associate learning at the visual recognition stage, not auditoryrecognition or associated stages. Bradley (1981) showed that simultaneous oralspelling (SOS) involving auditory, visual and motor input could effectively support thelearning of spelling for children experiencing difficulties.

Examination of slow literacy acquisition in the Isle of Wight study (Rutter, Tizardand Whitmore, 1970; Yule, 1973; Rutter and Yule, 1975) indicated that slow learningchildren displayed slow maturation and progressed in cognitive skills and literacyslowly but normally. In contrast, dyslexic children had a poor prognosis fordevelopment in literacy. However, work by Brooks (1991) showed that this picture isinaccurate, and slow learners show considerable weaknesses in their phonological skillsand across many aspects of their intellectual development. Over a period of 2.5 years,slow learners found marked difficulties in advancing their literacy skills in comparisonwith severe dyslexics. They showed many inconsistencies and weaknesses to theircognitive development which contributed to their limited progress. Their range ofweaknesses and need for slow and carefully structured learning might indicate thatthey would not respond equally to visual, meaningful and phonic-based teachingmethods but would benefit from a structured build-up of information offered inphonic-based teaching methods.

There are therefore two interesting groups of children whose literacy acquisitionproblems are worthy of study, namely dyslexic children and slow learning children. Iftheir cognitive profiles are different, it is reasonable to assume that their responses toteaching strategies will also be different from each other and normal children,depending upon strengths and weaknesses; teaching to strengths could lead toincreased efficiency in individual learning, or teaching to weaknesses might compen-sate for difficulties. However, the considerable quantity of research into literacydevelopment and cognitive features of dyslexics has not been reflected in studies oninterventions with children who have literacy difficulties. Further, there are even fewerstudies investigating the interaction of varying teaching strategies with the cognitive

? 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Dyslexia 4: 212222 (1998)

profile of participants. There is research that has investigated single teaching strategies(Lewis, 1982; Branwhite, 1983; Van der Leij and Van Daal, 1987); however, this has notallowed for direct comparison of other teaching strategies and so is of limited value.Single-case evidence (e.g. Brooks, 1995) investigating several teaching strategies has

P. L. Brooks and S. A. J. Weeks214indicated that it is not merely the application of rigour and structure to teaching thatimproves the success of the learning of these individuals, but that matching strengthsin the cognitive profile to the teaching strategy is critical.

Long overdue, therefore, is research investigating the interaction not only of thecognitive profile of dyslexic children and slow learners with a selection of teachingstrategies, but also highlighting the results of previous teaching. It is of interest toexamine whether it is best to build up weaknesses or work on the apparent strengthsof the individual child with difficulties, matching strategies accordingly. Such evidencewould have implications for the teaching of individuals, the training and provision ofspecialist teachers and in supporting current views of dyslexics as showing specificpatterns in cognitive functioning and learning. This evidence has a particular saliencein the current climate of stringent governmental financial provision for education.

There has been much recent evidence indicating that experience of phonology inyoung children can assist the development of literacy skills, especially in children who areat risk of failure (Lundberg, 1994; Tunmer, 1994). Hatcher, Hulme and Ellis (1994)proposed the effectiveness of a linkage between phonology and orthography in primaryaged children who were failing in literacy. These studies suggest that dyslexics may behelped by work building phonological and literacy skills despite their weaknesses inthese areas. However, this current paper views senior school aged participants who havealready shown limited response to phonic strategies owing to their severe dyslexia.

This paper is guided by three central questions. Do dyslexic children learn moreeffectively with visually and meaningfully based teaching methods matching theirstrengths and less well in phonic-based methods which are more dependent on theirweaknesses? Do normal children learn equally well whatever technique is applied? Doslow learning children benefit more from the structured build-up of information offeredby phonic methods rather than visual and meaning-based methods?

This research was therefore governed by two main hypotheses.

1 The teaching methods will lead to improved spelling, but some better than others.

2 The improvements in spelling within the visual/semantic and phonic teachingmethods will differ across groups. Specifically:A) dyslexicsvisual/semantic better than phonic methods;B) slow learnersphonic better than visual/semantic methods;C) controlsno difference between visual/semantic and phonic methods.

The teaching methods used are clarified and the rationale for their inclusion is offered.The phonic approach was chosen in order to incorporate a teaching technique that

relied on a phonological approach to learning spellings, since it is the ability to operatesuccessfully or not at the level of phonemic analysis that is currently believed to dictatethe success or not of the young child in acquiring proficient literacy skills.

The visual/semantic approach was chosen to analyse the success of exposure towords on a visual basis. However, within that broad category was also contained amore semantic/meaningful element of analysis. The participants were shown thatoften words will contain other smaller words, thereby encouraging the subject tooperate at different and deeper levels of processing.


Lastly, the tracing method was chosen to represent another sensory modality whichresearch has shown to affect rates of learning.

Different Strategies for Teaching Spelling 215METHODParticipantsThere were 12 participants in each of three groups: dyslexics, slow learners and

spelling age matched controls. Their ages, spelling levels, ability levels and gender are

Group Chronological Spelling IQ SexThe dyslexic participants were students attending a local authority unit for specificlearning difficulties (dyslexia) within a mainstream secondary school. They had

age age (% male)

Dyslexics 14.3 9.6 108.8 83(8.4) (10.9) (7.0)

(12.915.6) (8.411.4) (100122)Slow learners 14.3 7.9 50 50

(5.6) (9.8) (8.8)(13.514.6) (6.19.0) (6086)

Spelling age matched controls 9.9 9.6 101.2 50(3.9) (6.2) (6.9)

(13.514.6) (9.010.5) (89109)

The data are presented as: Mean score(Standard deviation)

(Range)Age scores and ranges are given in years and months. SDs are given in months only. IQ scores are given in quotientpoints.summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Mean chronological ages, Vernon spelling ages and IQs (WISC-R Short Form) and sex ofdyslexics, slow learners and spelling age matched controlsreceived small-group assistance in junior school and transferred to the unit at age 11

years. They continued to receive daily assistance for language, including a Cowderyet al. (19831985) framework for developing phonic skills and rules in spelling. Theywere viewed by their Local Education Authority (LEA) as being children with the mostsevere difficulties in literacy acquisition and usage in an area of over 20 000 schoolpopulation. All spelling ages were below the 20th centile for their chronological ages(Vernon Graded Word Spelling Test) (Vernon, 1977). They all had Full IQs (WechslerIntelligence Scale for ChildrenRevised (WISC-R) Short Form) (Wechsler, 1976) atmid-point and higher levels. Their difficulties in literacy were not seen as the result ofabsence from school, moves in school, foreign language difficulty, physical handicap,limited stimulation or motivation from home, or emotional or family trauma.

The slow learning group consisted of children matched for age with the dyslexicsbut with Full IQs (WISC-R Short Form) below one standard deviation (1 SD) of themean (below 85). They were all attending a school for moderate learning difficultieswith a similar geographical catchment to the dyslexics unit. They were placed in


classes of about 14 children with curricula suited to slow learners. This included theuse of reading schemes such as Racing to Read and systems for developing basicphonic skills and vocabulary linked to reading schemes (Hampshire Special NeedsReading and Spelling Materials).

P. L. Brooks and S. A. J. Weeks216The spelling age matched group consisted of children matched for spelling levels(Vernon Graded Word Spelling Test) with the dyslexics. They all had Full IQs(WISC-R Short Form) within 1 SD from the mean for their age and spelling levelswithin the 25th75th centile band for their age.

Materials

Each participant was taught 10 words to spell in each weeks instruction period. There

were four groups of words which were assigned to participants and teaching periods.

These groups of word were matched with each other for length, number of syllablesand frequency (Carroll, Davies and Richman, 1971). They were all singular nouns andcould be read using regular phonic strategies. Regularity was confirmed by anotheradults ratings which matched the experimenters on 92.5% of words. The words arepresented in the Appendix.

Procedure

The groups of words were allocated to each participant in each experimental group

such that there was a balance between each group according to words used, teaching

method and ordering of teaching. Each participant had a group of words allocated tobe taught by a phonic method, a tracing method and a visual/semantic method and abaseline with no teaching input.

The experiment was conducted over three consecutive weeks. On the first Mondayeach participant attempted spelling the allocated baseline set of words. The participantwas asked to write each set of the 10 words in the form: Write pole as in Theyhoisted the flag up the pole . The baseline score or number of words spelledcorrectly was noted. The participant was then asked to write each of the 10 words inthe word group that had been allocated for teaching in the first week. The numbercorrect was noted. Each error was drawn to the participants attention and taughtaccording to the phonic, visual/semantic or tracing method allocated for that week.This procedure for the taught group of words was repeated on Tuesday, Wednesdayand Thursday. On the Friday the participant spelled out the 10 words with noteaching. The number correct was noted. During the second week the total procedurefor the baseline and for the next group of taught words was repeated using theparticipants second teaching method. During the third week the total procedure forthe baseline and for the last group of taught words was repeated using the participantsthird teaching method. The baseline group of words was readministered for the finaltime on the Monday following the completion of the experiment.

In the phonic teaching method, when the participant made an error, (s)he was shownthe word for 10 s. The word was printed in black ink with the bodies of letters 5 mmhigh on small white playing cards. The experimenter sounded out each letter anddigraph in order, following this procedure with his index finger. For example, forgrain he would say: g-r-ai-n.

In the visual/semantic teaching method, after making an error, the participant wasshown the word for 10 s presented on a small playing card. The experimenter noted


any words that could be found within the word to be spelled. For instance, for grainhe would say: Look, we can find the words rain and in in this word. He wouldpoint to the words with his index finger as they were mentioned.

In the tracing teaching method, after making an error, the participant was shown the

Different Strategies for Teaching Spelling 217word for 10 s presented on a small playing card. The experimenter asked theparticipant to: Trace over the word with your index finger as if you were writing it.

In the baseline condition the participant was asked to spell the words at weeklyintervals throughout the experiment without any teaching being offered. Thiscondition was included in order to check that the participants did not advance inspelling skills over the course of this study, owing perhaps to a particular input atschool or home, or owing to generalization from the teaching within this study.

RESULTSWords Spelled Correctly at Baseline MeasuresSummary results for words spelled correctly at the four baseline measures for the three

experimental groups can be seen in Table 2.

Group Pre- After After At endThere was no significant learning over time in the baseline measures. This wasconfirmed by analysis of variance for the dyslexic participants (F=1.10, DF=3, 33,

teaching 1 week 2 weeks of teaching

Dyslexics 6.25 6.42 6.17 6.00(1.16) (1.32) (1.28) (1.00)(58) (49) (48) (58)

Slow learners 3.08 3.33 3.17 3.33(2.06) (1.49) (1.82) (1.84)(49) (16) (07) (07)

Spelling age matched controls 6.75 6.75 7.00 6.92(1.65) (1.09) (1.08) (1.44)(49) (39) (58) (48)

The data are presented as: Mean score(Standard deviation)

(Range)Scores could range from 0 to 10 words spelled correctly.Table 2. Mean number of words spelled correctly in baseline tests for dyslexic, slow learner and spellingage matched control groupsp n.s.), slow learners (F=0.47, DF=3, 33, p n.s.) and spelling age matched controls

(F=0.49, DF=3, 33, p n.s.). Experimental results were not affected by maturation inthe participants or by generalization of teaching.

It is of interest to compare the baseline scores for the three groups at the initialmeasure in order to judge the skills that they brought to this experiment. Spelling ageswould suggest that the slow learners should perform less well than the dyslexics andspelling age matched controls, who would equate with the dyslexics by definition.Analysis of variance confirmed a significant difference between the groups (F=16,


DF=2, 33, p

the phonic and visual/semantic methods (p n.s.). There was no significant interactionbetween experimental groups and teaching methods (F=1.70, DF=4, 66, p n.s.) in thisanalysis.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the improvements in spelling within the visual/semantic

Different Strategies for Teaching Spelling 219and phonic teaching methods would differ across groups. Results for the visual/semantic and phonic methods (with tracing omitted) were analysed using a two-wayanalysis of variance. There was a significant difference between the experimentalgroups (F=4.45, DF=2, 33, p=0.019) and no significant difference between theteaching methods (F=0.01, DF=1, 33, p=0.918). There was a significant interactionbetween groups and methods (F=3.27, DF=2, 33, p=0.05).

Hypothesis 2A proposed that the dyslexics would learn more effectively throughthe visual/semantic rather than the phonic method. This was the case (t=1.96,DF=11, p

interdependent on other cognitive functioning. Since the cognitive skills of the slowlearners were generally compromised, greater success came when the phonic techniqueintroduced the participants to the words through the step-by-step acquisition ofgrapheme/phoneme associations. This finding supports a model of slow learners using

P. L. Brooks and S. A. J. Weeks220association and rote-learning techniques rather than deeper, more rationalized strate-gies that are open to dyslexics of higher ability with greater semantic and verbal skills.The research shows differences in development and learning between dyslexics andslow learners that require suitable consideration for effective teaching and run counterto suggestions of similarities in cognitive processing and learning across these groupssuffering reading disabilities (Stanovich and Siegel, 1994).

Hypothesis 2C was also supported. There was little difference in the words spelledcorrectly in the visual/semantic and phonic conditions in the control group. Thisimplies that a normal child, having progressed through Friths stages, on attempting torecall spellings, will resort equally to visual, semantic and phonemic skills dependingon the construction of the word. These children on the whole learned to spell at aboutdouble the rate of both dyslexics and slow learners.

These results raise important points with regard to the teaching of dyslexic andslow learning children which not only have significance in the classroom but also inteacher training and resources offered to these children at a governmental level. Thisresearch has shown that dyslexic children achieve more when taught to their strengths.Not only does this affect their general educational progression but also theirself-esteem. This finding could enable resources to be used more effectively, sincelearning should be made more rapid using appropriately judged techniques and reducesecondary emotional problems.

CONCLUSION

This research supports the theory that dyslexic childrens difficulties stem from a

cognitive weakness based in a phonological processing difficulty which is now seen to

be central to learning to read and spell. The phonological dyslexic is trapped in thelogographic phase of Friths (1985) model and finds difficulty with the development ofalphabetic methods. Instead the dyslexic relies upon visual and meaningful cues toretain the construction of words. This research produces evidence that it is importantto match a teaching approach to the participants own particular strengths. However,this work has not answered the question as to the effects of not improving theweaknesses that both slow learners and dyslexic children display. The long-termeffects of teaching to the childrens weaknesses have both moral and ethicalramifications. It may well be that compensation for the weaknesses is especiallyappropriate for younger children. There are important implications for the teaching ofchildren with literacy difficulties, the education of teachers and resources on offer inschools. Teaching to the strengths of individual children requires the teachers havingan in-depth understanding of how to recognize and detect a childs strengths and thenhow to make the most of these abilities. This in turn has an effect on resources, sinceinitially this would require a greater input of time from the teacher. However, in time,this input might result in the saving of resources, since dealing with difficulties oncethey have occurred is even more costly.

The authors argue that the results from this work are important and justify furtherwork being carried out in the field. Currently the authors are undertaking research toassess whether these findings can be replicated in children between the ages of 7 and


9 years. This younger sample will offer earlier intervention for children and uses pupilswho have not a lengthy history of difficulties, failure and often phonic-based teachingmethods. Current work will consider recent findings for a need of linkage betweenliteracy experience and phonological development, and also with visual/semantic

Different Strategies for Teaching Spelling 221development, in order for progress to be heightened.

References

Adams, M. (1990) Beginning to Read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bradley, L. (1981) The organisation of motor patterns for spelling; an effective remedial

strategy for backward readers. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 23, 8391.Branwhite, A. (1983) Boosting reading skills by direct instruction. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 53, 291298.Brooks, P. (1991) Talk to the BDA International Conference, Oxford.Brooks, P. (1995) The effectiveness of various teaching strategies in teaching spelling to astudent with severe learning difficulties. Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 8088.Carroll, J., Davies, P. and Richman, B. (1971) Word Frequency Book. New York: AmericanHeritage.Cowdery, L., Morse, P., Price, M. and Montgomery, D. (19831985) Teaching readingthrough spelling. Kingston Polytechnic Learning Difculties Project.Ehri, C. (1992) Reconceptualising the development of sight word reading and itsrelationship to recoding. In P. Gough, C.L. Ehri and R. Treiman (Eds), Reading Acquisition.Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Frith, U. (1985) Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K.E. Patterson, J.C.Marshall, and M. Coltheart, (Eds) Surface Dyslexia. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Gillingham, A. and Stillman, B. (1956) Remedial Training of Children with Specific Disability inReading, Spelling and Penmanship. New York, NY: Sackett and Wilhelms.Goswami, U. and Bryant, P. (1990) Phonological Skills and Learning to Reach. Hove: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Hatcher, P., Hulme, C. and Ellis, A. (1994) Ameliorating early reading failure by integratingthe teaching of reading and phonological skills: the phonological linkage hypothesis. ChildDevelopment, 65, 4157.

Hickey, K. (1978) DyslexiaA Language Training Course for Teachers and Learners. London:Better Books.

Hulme, C. (1981). Reading Retardation and Multi-sensory Teaching. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.

Hulme, C., Monk, A. and Ives, S. (1987) Some experimental studies of multisensoryteaching: the effects of manual tracing on childrens paired-associate learning. British Journalof Developmental Psychology, 5, 299307.

Lewis, A. (1982) An experimental evaluation of a direct instruction programme (CorrectiveReading) with remedial readers in a comprehensive school. Educational Psychology, 2(2),121135.

Lundberg, I. (1994) Reading difficulties can be predicted and prevented: a Scandinavianperspective on phonological awareness and reading. In C. Hulme and M. Snowling (Eds),Reading Development and Dyslexia. London: Whurr.

Olson, R., Wise, B., Conners, F. and Rack, J. (1990) Organisation, heritability andremediation of component word recognition and language skills in disabled readers. In T.Carr and B. Levy (Eds), Reading and Its Development: Component Skills Approaches,pp. 261322. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


Pumfrey, P. and Reason, R. (Eds) (1991) Specific Learning Difculties (Dyslexia), Challenges andResponses. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Rack, J. (1985) Orthographic and phonetic coding in developmental dyslexia. British Journalof Psychology, 76, 325340.

Flag Club Pond Deck

P. L. Brooks and S. A. J. Weeks222Grain Cloud Block BrainPlayer Lesson Effort BasketPlanet Signal Pocket MannerSetting Factory Diagram ElementPotato Subject Traffic MineralBirthday Particle Supplies DarknessActivity Instance Property ParallelYesterday Statement Equipment VegetableRugel, R. (1974) WISC subtest scores of disabled readers: a review with respect toBannatynes categorisation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1, 5764.

Rutter, M., Tizard, J. and Whitmore, K. (1970) Education, Health and Behaviour. London:Longman.

Rutter, M. and Yule, W. (1975) The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of ChildPsychology, 16, 181197.

Stanovich, K. and Siegel, L. (1994) Phenotypic performance profile of children with readingdisabilities: a regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 2453.

Tunmer, W. (1994) Phonological processing skills and reading remediation. In C. Hulme andM. Snowling (Eds), Reading Development and Dyslexia. London: Whurr.

Van der Leij, A. and Van Daal, V. (1987) Attacking dyslexia: the effects of proceeding andsimultaneous verbal practise. Paper presented to the International Conference of LearningDisabilities, Amsterdam.

Van Orden, G., Pennington, B. and Stone, G. (1990) Word identification in reading and theprovision of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488522.

Vernon, P. (1977) The Graded Word Spelling Test. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Wechsler, D. (1976) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenRevised UK Edition. Sidcup: ThePsychological Corporation.

Yule, W. (1973) Differential prognosis of reading backwardness and specific readingretardation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 252255.

Appendix. The word lists

Pole Cage Gate Bone? 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Dyslexia 4: 212222 (1998)

A Comparison of the Responses of Dyslexic, Slow Learning and Control Children to Different Strategies for Teaching SpellingsINTRODUCTIONMETHODParticipantsMaterialsProcedure

RESULTSWords Spelled Correctly at Baseline MeasuresResults of Teaching Using Phonic, Visual/Semantic and Tracing Methods

DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONReferences

Documents

Brooks & Weeks, 1998