Research in Rural Education, Fall 1990, Vol. 7, No.1, pp.

61-70

Effectiveness of Visual Imagery Versus Rule-based

Strategies in Teaching Spelling
to Learning Disabled Students

Craig Daren'
Robert G. Simpson 2
Auburn University

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of two approaches for teaching
spelling. The subjects for this study were 28 upper elementary learning disabled students randomly assigned
to ~ne of two treatment groups. One group of students was taught spelling with a visual imagery mnemonic,
while the other was taught spelling with rule-based spelling strategies. Students were evaluated on three
separate dependent measures: (a) three 10-item unit tests administered every 8 to 10 lessons, (b) a 25-item
posttest consisting of randomly selected words from the entire instructional unit, and (c) The Test of Written
Spelling, a standardized measure, administered etthe conclusion of instruction. The results of this spelling
instruction study indicated that students taught with explicit rule-based strategies out-performed students
presented with a visual imagery model on each of the dependent variables. The authors discuss the implica-
tion of these results for teachers of learning disabled students.
INTRODUCTION ness. In response to this paucity of instructional
research, both researchers and practitioners have
There is a growing awareness that for instruc- emphasized the need for carefully controlled studies
tional models to be effective with learning disabled designed to evaluate the effectiveness of various
students in rural settings, academic programs must be approaches to spelling instruction (Englert, Hiebert, &
tailored specifically to meet the needs of those stu- Stewart, 1985).
dents. Parks, Ross, & Just (1982) assessed the The interestinspelling research is particularly
current research in rural education and concluded that lively in the area of learning disabilities. Although most
it is important to "develop distinctly rural models for students with learning disabilities have difficulty with all
providing students with adequate curricula and serv- forms of written expression, spelling problems rank as
ice" (p. 185) .. Because the development of rural special some of the most difficult to remediate and are com-
education programs present educators with a unique'mon among learning disabled students (oemaster,
set of curriculum design problems, studies are needed . Crossland, & Hasselbring, 1986).. In fact, several
that evaluate the effectiveness of various' instructional .researchers (Deshler, Schumaker, Alley, Warner, &
approaches for learning disabled students in' rurat.. Clark, 1-982) have indicated that problems with spelling
areas. effectively' discriminate between' learning disabled
Teaching spelling to students in the elemen- adolescents and other low performing students. Al-
though, as.Granarn and Freeman (1985) state "spell-
tary grades is an instructlonal'area that has received
ing instruction has received Httle attention in the re-
considerable attention in the literature in recent years .
(Graham, 1983). Unfortunately, much of this work has search.literature" (p. 267), descriptive studies have
been published in which the spellihgabilities of-learn-
been non-experimental in nature. Authors have often
ing disabled and non-learning disabled students have
recommended spelling instruction approaches without
research studies-to support their claims of. effectlve- . . been addressed and.compared.:

1Craig Darch is AssociateProfessorin the Depertmen:ot.Rehabilftcitlon& Sp8Cial Education at Auburn University' .

Auburn University, AL 36849-5226. _ . ....' . .' . ..' .. '. '
2Robert G. Simpson is Professorof Special Education iii the Departmentof Rehabilitation & Sp9Cial Education"at
Auburn University, Auburn University, AL 36849"5226.' ...'... _'.' . .
61
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

Several researchers have focused on the because spelling is a visual activity, approaches to
performance deficits of learning disabled students and spelling instruction which are primarily auditory in na-
have suggested that the spelling problems exhibited by ture will not be as effective as visually based ap-
these students can be attributed to structural or ability proaches.
deficits (Graham & Freeman, 1985). Recently, how- If this conjecture is true, it is suggested that
ever, studies have indicated that LD students' spelling teaching students with explicit rule-based strategies
difficulties are a function of strategy-production deficits may be less effective than imagery based mnemonics.
(Gerber, 1986; Nulman & Gerber, 1984). Research Recently, however, results of studies designed to
that evaluates the types and causes of strategy deficits .evaluate the effects of strategy training with learning
are important to the development of an effective tech- disabled students have been reported that suggest
nology of spelling instruction. For example, if the otherwise. In one study, Graham and Freeman (1986)
problems learning disabled students exhibit in spelling examined strategy training in the context of several
are a function of strategy deficits, then effective spell- experimental conditions. The results of their study
ing instruction should include teaching students spe- indicated that LD students who were taught a five-step
cific spelling strategies, and then provide practice in study strategy spelled more accurately than did control
applying these strategies to a variety of words. Indeed, subjects. These authors concluded that "LD students'
Bailet and Lyon (1985) asserted that "deficient rule ap- spelling difficulties are associated with problems in
plication, either alone or in combination with other self-regulation of organized, strategic behavior" (p.
processing difficulties, can cause spelling difficulties" 15). It should be noted that the Graham and Freeman
(p. 164). If this assertion is correct, then more studies study did not compare the effectiveness of teaching LD
that evaluate the effectiveness of various strategy students different spelling strategies.'
approaches to spelling instruction are sorely needed. Robinson and Hesse (1982) studied the differ-
Unfortunately, few have been reported to date. ential effectiveness of the Spelling Through Morphogra-
The purpose of the present study was to inves- phs Program with low, average, and high performing
tigate the relative effectiveness of two different ap- seventh graders. Spelling Through Morphographs
proaches for teaching spelling to rural fourth grade (Dixon & Engelmann, 1979) involves a rule-based
leaming disabled students. One group of students was strategy approach that is similar to the structure of the
taught spelling with a visual imagery mnemonic, while spelling approach used in the Spelling Mastery treat-
the other group was presented with rule-based spelling ment utilized in the present study. Results of their study
strategies. Both of these approaches were designed to indicated that low and average ability students who
teach students a spelling strategy; however, the two received instruction based on a rule-based strategy
strategies differed greatly. A visual imagery strategy is approach displayed significant spelling achievement
a generic method that can be applied to any word-type gains when compared to controls. When the perform-
students are taught. If found to be a successful tech- ance of the high achieving students was evaluated,
nique, visual imagery would be a relatively cost effec- less success was found. The results ofthis study have
tive instructional method to implement in most class- implications for designing spelling programs for learn-
rooms. In addition, teachers would find it appealing ing disabled students and led to the design of the
because visual imagery is easy to implement. Several present study.
researchers have suggested that because of the cog-
nitive deficits exhibited by LD students, techniques like
visual imagery, which help the student focus his/her METHOD
attention to a task, may be helpful (Rose, Cundick, &
Higbee, 1983). To date, no spelling research investi- SUbjects and Setting
gating the effectiveness of visual imagery with elemen-
tary grade LD students has been reported. However, The subjects for this study were 28 learning
Sears and Johnson (1986) investigated the effects of disabled students who attended a university based
using a visual imagery strategy for spelling instruction summer program located in the rural southeast. Each
of non-handicapped fourth to sixth graders. Results of of the students participating in this study had a history
this siudy indicated that a visual imagery approach was of low academic achievement. In the summer pro-
superior to an auditory treatment in which students gram, the students received remedial instruction in a
were taught to focus on the relationship of the sounds variety of academic areas.
in each word. Sears and Johnson suggested that,

62
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

Of the 28 subjects, 7 were black and 21 were 6 weeks, and instruction was provided to students in
white. Twelve females and 16 males participated in the groups.
study. The mean age of the entire sample was 10 To ensure internal validity of this study, certain
years, 6 months. The mean full scale 10 for the entire aspects of the instructional presentation were con-
sample was 92. The subjects had been placed in trolled across both groups. For example, students in
programs in their local districts based on both federal both treatment groups received instruction for 25 days.
and state guidelines for learning disabilities. These Length of these daily instructional sessions was also
guidelines required that identified students demon- comparable, about 25-30 minutes per treatment group.
strate at least average potential as measured by a Additionally, the spelling words used in each of the
standardized intelligence test and exhibit a significant treatment groups were identical, consisting of the
discrepancy in one of the major academic areas. practice words that were presented in the Spelling
All subjects were administered the spelling Mastery Program. Lessons for the Visual Imagery
subtest of the Wide Range of Achievement Test (Jas- group were developed around these words. Lessons
tak & Jastak, 1984) as a pretest. This test was for both the Spelling Mastery Group and the Visual
individually administered approximately 1 week before Imagery Group were scripted which allowed for the
beginning the experimental interventions. Relative to individual treatments to be implemented uniformly and
grade placement, the spelling achievement of the total appropriately.
sample of students was low (spelling grade level mean In spite of the similarities, there were several
= 3.7). Although there were slight differences in critical curriculum design differences between the two
spelling achievement between the two groups, the instructional groups. In the Spelling Mastery Group,
result of a t-test for independent samples indicated that the students were taught spelling with the use of
these differences were not significant (p > .05). explicit rule-based strategies. The three major strate-
Four graduate students completing their train- gies taught to this group of students were: (a) mor-
ing program served as examiners and experimental phemic analysis, (b) phonemic analysis, and (c) spell-
teachers. To control for potential teacher bias effects, ing rules. In addition, students in the Spelling Mastery
teachers were randomly assigned to either the Spelling group were provided with specified teacher-directed
Mastery Group or the Visual Imagery Group. After the corrections during spelling instruction.
teachers had been randomly assigned to their instruc- Spelling instruction inthe Visual Imagery Group
tional group, each teacher met individually with the was vastly different and was based on the visual
senior author for training in how to implement their imagery model presented by Sears and Johnson (1986).
respective spelling program. The senior author met In this approach students were not provided with the
with each teacher twice for approximately 1 hour each strategy training that students in the Spelling Mastery
time. During these training sessions, the correct in- Group received. Instead, these students were taught
structional procedures for the appropriate spelling a generic visual imagery framework that could be
program were modeled. Through role playing, the applied to words of any type. In addition, students in
teachers practiced the instructional procedures and this group did not receive the systematic strategy
were critiqued by the senior author. All teachers were based corrections utilized inthe Spelling Mastery Group.
jUdged to have mastered their respective instructional
strategies.
Spelling Mastery Program
SUbject Assignment, Instructional Students in this treatment group received spell-
Materials, and Procedures ing instruction based on Level C of the Spelling Mas-
tery Program (Dixon & Engelmann, 1979). This com-
In order to compare the relative effectiveness of mercial program contains 137 lessons and is designed
two different approaches for teaching spelling, fourth to improve the spelling skills of fourth grade students by
grade LD students were randomly assigned to either a teaching curriculum based spelling strategies. Stu-
group which received instruction involving visual im- dents in this treatment group received instruction on
agery or a group receiving rule-based spelling instruc- selected lessons through lesson 40 in the program.
tion. To increase the external validity of this study, The Spelling Mastery Program, like other similarly
each instructional intervention lasted for approximately designed direct instructional programs (Gersten,
Woodward, & Darch, 1986) has scripted lessons, so

63
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

that the teacher is provided specific directions con- Another strategy used with this treatment group
cerning how to implement the lessons and what to say was teaching students to apply phonemic analysis to
to the students. The most significant curriculum fea- spelling. With this strategy a student was first provided
ture of this instructional treatment is the teaching of a rule and then was asked to apply this rule to a
spelling via carefully crafted learning strategies. In all, carefully sequenced group of practice examples. Fi-
three salient strategies were taught to students in this nally, students were taught several spelling rules that
group. Students were first taught the meaning of a allowed for systematic application of a spelling strategy
morphograph and then were instructed to identify the to many words. An example of a spelling rule taught to
component morphographs in words. Once this skill students is the rule for dropping the final e in a word
was developed, students were presented with exten- (e.g., valuelvaluing).
sive practice spelling words composed of these rnor-
phographs. In Table 1 an example of one of the lesson
formats designed to teach students a morpho graphic
Visual Imagery Group
analysis strategy is presented. As can be observed,
Students in this treatment group received spell-
students are presented with words which are com-
ing instruction based on the visual imagery model
posed of at least two morphographs. The students are
discussed by Sears and Johnson (1986). Students
asked to first identify each of the morphographs in the
were presented with the same practice words that the
work and then to spell the complete word. This basic
students received in the Spelling Master group, about
strategy was applied to several words.
15 words per lesson. Because instruction occurred in
groups, an overhead projector was used to present
Figure 1
spelling words to the students. When a word was
Sample Spelling Mastery Strategy for
presented, the students were directed to look at the
Teaching Morphographic Analysis
word and apply a four step visual imagery model. This
was done by the teacher who implemented the follow-
1. Find Part D on your worksheet. Get ready
ing procedure: (1) after covering the word the teacher
to write some words that have more than
asked the students if they could see the image of the
one morphograph.
word in their mind; (2) the students were then directed
to imagine the word displayed on a large outdoor
2. First word: breakable What's the first
screen; (3) next, the students were asked to imagine
morphograph in breakable?
each letter of the word pasted onto the screen; and (4)
Signal. Break.
finally, the students were told to help themselves to
Next morphograph? Signal. A-b-1-e.
remember the word by visualizing themselves nailing
the letters of the word onto the screen.
3. Write breakable.
This procedure was used with the first several
words presented to the students. Once the students
4. Next word: restlessness.
had completed the teacher guided part of the lesson
What's the first morphograph in restless-
they were asked to apply the visual imagery strategy,
ness?
without teacher assistance, to several words from a list
Signal. Rest.
that had been passed out by the teacher. Typically, the
Next morphograph? Signal. Less.
list contained five to seven words. This independent
Next morphograph? Signal. Less
practice was closely monitored by the experimental
5. Write restlessness. teacher and typically required 5 to 8 minutes. Once the
students had completed this independent activity, and
if there was still time left in the session, the students
6. For misjudge, refillable, unkindness, and
were directed to practice the visual imagery model on
charming, have students identify each
the words that appeared on the overhead screen.
morphograph and write each word.

7. Correct Part D.

Taken from Dixon & Engelman (1979, Level C,

Spelling Master Program).

64
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

Dependent Measures Test of Written Spelling

There were three types of dependent measures The Test of Written Spelling (TWS) (Larsen &
used for this study. First, spelling was assessed with Hammill, 1986) was administered to students in each
three unit tests that were administered approximately of the instructional groups the day following the last day
every 8 to 10 lessons. The purpose of these short tests of intervention. The TWS was chosen for this study
was to evaluate the student's ability to spell a selected because the test is designed to assess students' spell-
set of words presented in the lessons. The second ing performance on both predictable words (e.g., rule-
measure was a posttest, comprised of words from the governed) and unpredictable words (e.g., rule-gov-
entire instructional unit. The third measure, The Test erned). Therefore, it was possible to determine if there
of Written Spelling (Larsen & Hammill, 1986), was existed an interaction between word-type (predictable
administered to evaluate whether there were differ- vs. unpredictable) and type of strategy instruction. Stu-
ences in the two instructional approaches on a broader, dents were tested as a group by their respective
more comprehensive measure of spelling achieve- teachers.
ment. These dependent measures are discussed in
more detail below.
RESULTS
Unit tests Examination of Table 1 indicates clear differ-
ences between the performances of the two experi-
At the end of approximately every 9 lessons a 10- mental groups. The students taught in the Spelling
item test made up of randomly selected words from the Mastery group performed similarly on each of the
unit, was administered to all subjects. These tests probe measures. The range of performance for this
were administered to the students as a group. All group was 70% to 78% words spelled correctly. The
students had as much time as necessary to complete Visual Imagery group performed consistently as well,
the tests. Whenever necessary, the rate of presenting however, their performance was appreciably lower.
the words was slowed to allow students to have time to The Visual Imagery group scored at 47% correct on
apply their particular strategy to a test word. In total, probe 1, 50% correct on probe 2, and 46% on probe 3.
there were three unit spelling tests administered during Results of a 2 x 3 (group x test) repeated measures
this study. ANOVA indicated a significant main effect favoring the
Spelling Mastery group, F(1, 26) = 33, P < .01. There
was no significant test effect, nor was there a signifi-
Posttest cant interaction.
The results of each group on the 25-item
After completion of the entire instructional pro- posttest along with the scores on the Test of Written
gram, students in both groups received a comprehen- Spelling for the subtests of predictable words (e.g.,
sive posttest consisting of the words the students rule-governed words) and unpredictable words (e.g.,
learned in each spelling program. In order to ensure irregular words) are presented in Table 2. The results
that students were tested on a representative range of of the postest are consistent with the results of the
word-types presented in the programs, 25 words were probe measures. As can be seen in Table 2, the
randomly selected for inclusion on this posttest. The average score on the posttest was 17 words correct
test was administered on the day following the last day (68%) forthe Spelling Mastery group, while the Visual
of instruction. The testing procedure for the posttest Imagery group averaged 11 words correct (44%).
was the same as that used for the unit tests. Testing There was a similar pattern of results on each subtest
was done in groups, with students given as much time on the Test of Written Spelling. When the groups'
as necessary to apply their particular strategy to a test performance on the Predicted Words subtest is consid-
word. Students were not assisted by the teacher if they ered, the Spelling Mastery Group scored higher than
had difficulty with a word. If students asked for help, the Visual Imagery Group (29 words correct for the
they were told to attempt to apply the techniques they Spelling Mastery Group versus 24 words correct forthe
had learned in the spelling group. Visual Imagery Group). Similar results, favoring the
Spelling Mastery group, occurred on the Unpredictable

65
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

Words subtest (15 words correct vs. 11 words correct). contexts, these students must be given extensive
Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) procedures practice in applying these strategies. Although the
were used to evaluate the effect of student perfonn- Spelling Mastery Program provides practice in the
ance on the three dependent variables: (a) the 25-item application of spelling rules, the amount of practice that
posttest, (b) the predictable words subtest form the was provided in the present study was inadequate.
TWS, and (c) the unpredictable word subtest form the The typical leaming activity in the Spelling Mastery
TWS. The results of the MANOVA indicated that there Program requires that the students work with that
were significant differences between the Spelling teacher on several words, practice applying the appro-
Mastery group and the Visual Imagery group, (2, 24) = priate rule, then work independently on three to five
9.87, P < .01. Separate one-way analyses of variance words. Learning disabled students will likely require
were calculated for each of the three dependent vari- many more practice examples to achieve mastery.
ables to determine where these differences occurred. Analysis of the posttest results allows for a
In each analysis (p < .01) there was a significant comparison between the experimental groups on a
difference favoring the Spelling Mastery group on each measure that was designed to assess spelling reten-
dependent measure. tion across 25 days of instruction. Because previous
researchers have confirmed the memory problems of
leaming disabled students (Gelzheiser, Solar, Shep-
DISCUSSION ard, & Wozniak, 1982), the performance of each group
was expected to be lower on the posttest than on the
Results of the present study indicate that the Probe measures. Although each group did perform at
students taught with an explicit rule-based strategy a lower level on the posttest (see Table 2), these
approach outperformed students who were presented differences were slight. What is important to recog-
with a visual imagery spelling strategy. This finding is nize, however, is that the students who were taught
important for two reasons. First, it will help teachers in with rule-based strategies significantly outperformed
rural settings make informed mstructcnat decisions the students in the Visual Imagery Group. This result
when developing new spelling programs for disabled supports the assertion that teaching LD students rule-
students. Rule-based spelling strategies, when pre- based spelling strategies, in a direct instruction format,
sented with explicit teacher modeling and detailed is a superior instructional method when long-tenn
correction procedures, are superiorto approacHes that retention is evaluated. Students in the Spelling Mas-
fail to teach students how to use a specific approach for tery group were able to apply spelling strategies to
different word-types. Because rural school districts new, untaught words. Even though rule-based strate-
serve a disproportionate number of special education gies can be rather detailed, and may sometimes be
students, effective and cost efficient instructional models difficult for learning disabled students to apply, this
are desperately needed so that teachers can improve approach was still superiortothe visual imagery method.
the academic performance of learning disabled stu- Research in memory perfonnance of learning
dents. The results of the present study suggest a disabled children has shown that these students often
model of curriculum design teachers in rural programs exhibit retrieval, organizational, and/or selective atten-
can use to modify existing commercial instructional tion deficits (Tarver, Hallahan, Kauffman, &Ball, 1976).
programs. Results of the present study indicate that provldinq
The outcomes on the three probe measures leaming disabled students with explicit rule-based
allow a comparison between the treatment groups on strategies enhances the ability of these students to
a short-term recall measure. The students who taught perform on memory tasks. It also seems clear that
to use rule-based spelling strategies performed in the packaged programs, like the Spelling Mastery pro-
75% correct range (see Table 1). Conversely, the gram, will probably benefit greatly from modification.
students who were taught to use a visual imagery Teachers will need to include more guided practice
strategy scored much lower, in the 50% correct range. when a strategy is first introduced so that learning
Although the students in the rule-based strategy group disabled students can efficiently apply strategies when
scored higher, it is important to note, however, thatthey working independently. One possible explanation as
did not perform at a mastery level. Several researchers to why the visual imagery approach may have been
have demonstrated that for learning disabled students less effective is that during the instructional sessions
to apply learning strategies effectively, in unprompted the teacher could not be sure whether the students

66
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

were actually using the imagery model when they were instrument, ~ is possible to determine if an interaction
spelling practice words. In contrast, the students who existed between instructional approach and word type.
were taught rule-based strategies were required to As can be noted in Table 2, the Spelling Mastery group
apply spelling rules in an overt, observable manner. outperformed the Visual Imagery group on both sub-
This allowed the teacher to closely monitor the stu- tests; regardless of whether students were assessed
dents and to ensure that they were actually applying on regularor irregularwords, the students who learned
the specified strategies. Also, the teacher was able to rule-based strategies performed higher, although the
provide corrective feedback during the learning proc- scores for both groups dropped appreciably when
ess, not just correction as to whether a word was irregular words were assessed (61% correct for the
spelled correctly. Other researchers have shown the Spelling Mastery froup and 45% for the Visual Imagery
effectiveness of process feedback during instruction group). When discussing how teachers can help teach
(Gersten et aI., 1986). LO students to memorize, Gelzheiser, et al. (1983)
Carpenter and Miller (1982) reported that learn- commemted: U if the goal of the training is general-
•••

ing disabled students have difficulty spelling both regu- ized improvement in the ability to memorize, simply
lar and irregular words. It is therefore important to teaching children a fixed mnemonic will not be ade-
study whether certain spelling approaches are differ- quate" (p. 423). As the results of the present study
entially effective with various types of words. Student indicate, teachers who decide to use visual imagery
performance on the subtests of the Test of Written because they think that students will be able to suc-
Spelling allow for such an analysis. Because both cessfully apply this general technique likely will be
regular and irregular words were assessed on this disappointed in the outcome.

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Number of Correct Spelling Words
on the Probe Measures

Treatment

Spelling Mastery Visual Imagery

Test M SO M SO

Probe 1a 7.9 1.5 4.7 2.0

Probe 2a 7.2 1.3 5.0 1.6
Probe 3a 7.8 1.2 4.6 2.0

aprobe test scores are based on 10 possible iterns

67
/ Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Number of Correct Spelling Words
for the Posttest and Predictable, Unpredictiable for the
Test of Written Spelling

Treatment

Spelling Mastery Visual Imagery

Test M SO M SO

Posttest- 17.5 3.8 11.7 4.1

Predictable words" 29.2 4.2 24.0 4.2
Unpredictable words- 15.2 4.2 11.2 2.0

aposttest scores are based on 25 possible items.

bPredictable word subtest scores are based on 35 possible items.
cUnpredictable word subtest scores are based on 25 possible items.

68
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

REFERENCES
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986).
Bailet, L. L., & Lyon, R. (1985). Deficient linguistic Direct instruction: Designing successful curricu-
rule application in a learning disabled speller: A lum for the handicapped. Exceptional Children,
case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 53,17-31.
162-164.
Graham, S., & Freeman. (1985). Teaching basic
Carpenter, D., & Miller, L. (1982). Spelling ability of academic skills to learning disabled students: A
reading disabled LD students and able readers. model of the teaching and learning process.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 65-70. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 528-534.

Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, Graham, S. (1983). Effective spelling instruction.
G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1984). Visual imagery The Elementary SChool Journal, 83, 560-567.
and self-questioning: Strategies to improve com-
prehension of written material. Journal of Learn- LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a
ing Disabilities, 17, 145-148. theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Demaster, V. K., Crossland, C. L., & Hasselbring, T.
S. (1986). Consistency of learning disabled stu- Larsen, S. C., & Hammill, D. D. (1986). Test of
dent's spelling performance. Learning Disability written spelling (TWS - 2). Austin, Texas:
Quarterly, 9, 89-96. Pro Ed.

Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., Leong, C. K. (1983). Promising areas of research
Warner, M. M., & Clark, F. (1982). Learning dis- into learning disabilities with emphasis on reading
abilities in adolescent and young adult popula- disabilities. In J. P. Das, R. G. Mulcahy, and A. E.
tions: Research and implications. Focus on Wall (Eds.), Theory and research in learning dis-
Exceptional Children, 1-12. abilities (pp. 3-26). New York: Plenum Press.

Parks, G., Ross, P., & Just, A. (1982). Education in

Dixon, R. & Engelmann, S. (1979). Corrective rural sociology in the United States: Issues for
spelling through morphographs. Chicago: the 80's, Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado.
Science Research Associates.

Englert, C. S., Heibert, E. H., & Stewart, S. R. Robinson, J. W., & Hess, K. D. (1981). A mor-
(1985). Spelling unfamiliar words by an analogy phemically based spelling program's effect on
strategy. The Journal of Special Education, 19, spelling skills and spelling performance of seventh
281-306. grade students. Journal of Educational Research,
75,56-62.
I

Gelzheiser, L. M., Solar, R. A., Shepherd, M. J., &

Wozniak, R. H. (1983). Teaching learning Rose, M. C., Cundick, B. P., & Higbee, K. L. (1983).
disabled children to memorize: A rationale for Verbal rehearsal and visual imagery: Mnemonic
plans and practice. Journal of Learning Disabili- aids for learning disabled children. Journal of
ties, 16, 421-425. Learning Disabilities, 16,352-354.

Sears, N. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1986). The effects

Gerber, M. M. (1986). Generalization of spelling of visual imagery on spelling performance and
strategies by LD students as a result of contin- retention among elementary students. Journal of
gent imitation/modeling and mastery criteria. Educational Research, 79, 230-233.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19,530-537.

69
Darch and Simpson Teaching Spelling

Tarver, S., Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Ball, D.

(1976). Verbal rehearsal and selective attention
in children with learning disabilities: A develop-
mental lag. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 22, 375-385.

70