Effective education Programs for Students with LDs

The types of spelling programs that are effective for typically developing students may not be
effective for students with LDs. For example, many spelling programs rely on independent work
at home or at school, but these strategies may not be as effective for students with LDs. Students
with LDs do best when they have continuous feedback(Sayeski, 2011). Also, spelling programs
developed for typically developing students may teach spelling rules by developing a foundation
of spelling words (end-of-week spelling lists). The spelling word list may not be effective for
students with LDs because they may have difficulty generalizing spelling rules to unfamiliar
words (Wanzek et al., 2006).

When we teach small numbers of words and constantly review them, students with LDs have
shown great gains in their spelling competence. However, without being able to generalize this
competence to unfamiliar words, students with LDs risk never being able to develop a large
spelling vocabulary. Effective spelling programs for students with LDs are discussed in four
categories:

1. features of instructional delivery

2. computer-assisted instruction
3. multisensory training; and
4. study and word practice procedures (Wanzek et al., 2006).

Instructional Delivery
Error Imitation – Some positive gains have been made when the teacher uses error imitation
analysis (e.g., repeating the error before correcting it; Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995;
Gordon et al., 1993). After the student completes the pre-test, the teacher corrects the mistakes
by writing the mistake down and stating “this is how you spelled this word.” The teacher then
writes the correct word and says “this is how you spell it correctly.” When using this strategy, be
sure to establish that the corrected spelling aligns with an overall spelling rule (e.g. the ‘e’ is
dropped when a suffix is added). There is some evidence to suggest that even though this process
can be effective, it may also be perceived by the student as a punishment (Nulman & Gerber,
1984).

Unit Size  – Students with LDs do better learning spelling rules when the instructor limits the
number of new words learned to three or fewer words. Rather than include a mixed
assortment of words at one time, students with LDs do better when a few words are taught every
day. This is especially true for words with irregular spellings. Some researchers believe that the
most effective method is to include a maximum of three words with irregular spellings at a time
(Gettinger, Bryant, & Fayne, 1982).

Self-regulation strategy development – A team of researchers (Graham and colleagues, 2003,

2005) have developed techniques to help students with learning disabilities monitor their own
learning. For spelling strategies, researchers recommend using a self-monitoring checklist such
as generate-and-test or spelling-by-analogy (Reid, Lienemann, & Hagaman, 2013).
The generate-and-test checklist includes a series of questions such as “do I know the word?” and
“how many syllables do I hear?” Students follow the checklist to remind themselves of the steps
to effective spelling.

The spelling-by-analogy strategy categorizes words by their sound-families. For example, a

student can apply their knowledge of the spelling of ‘game’ to spell related words like ‘flame’
and ‘shame’.  Click here to learn more about Self-Regulation Strategy Development.

Morphological problem-solving - Morphological problem solving is the method by which

unfamiliar words can be decoded through the analysis of meaning elements (e.g. prefix, base,
suffix). Students learn about the origin and construction of words. Rather than using a shallow
and wide method (teaching many words), morphological analysis provides deep and narrow
instruction about the meaning elements of (fewer) words. Even though recent literature has
demonstrated that morphological instruction improves reading and spelling
competencies (Carlisle, 2007) it has not been widely accepted in classroom programs (Nunes &
Bryant, 2006). Morphological problem-solving strategies such as word matrix and word
sum development are effective classroom tools (Bowers & Kirby, 2010). Morphological
instruction may help learners with irregular word spellings, which is a challenge that has
received little research attention (Kohnen, Nickels, & Coltheart, 2010). If educators are
interested in learning how to teach morphology in their classrooms, they can find more
information on the WordWorks Literacy Centre webpage. Click here to visit the webpage. .

Computer-Assisted Instruction
Computer-assisted instruction has been effective at teaching spelling to students with LDs when
the software incorporates the time-delay technique (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995). The time-
delay technique involves a brief delay between the student’s attempt and the subsequent
corrective guidance. Usually, as the student becomes more skilled, the waiting time is increased
(progressive time delay). For some students, it is better if the time delay is constant. Computer-
assisted instruction is well suited for this type of strategy because current computers can
recognize spoken language, provide dynamic feedback, and speak words to the student.

Multisensory Training
Multisensory training refers to the use of tools, objects, or devices that increase sensory
input of the learning experience. Multisensory training might involve keying the letters into a
computerized toy. The Speak and Spell learning toy was an extremely popular multi-sensory
device in the 1980s. Modern devices such as iPads run similar spelling apps (e.g. Speaking
Spell). Multisensory devices use strategies, such as write-and-say, for rote practice and dynamic
feedback. Computerized spelling toys are ways to practice the write-and-say technique because
using the toy can be motivating for students. The write-and-say technique has been used
effectively for math skills as well (e.g., learning multiplication tables).
Study and Word Practice
Study and word practice procedures include strategies such as copy-the-word or cover-write-
compare. These activities provide students with opportunities to practice the spelling of a
developmentally appropriate list of words with a teacher present. Students with LDs may not
demonstrate as many gains when using study and word practice independently. Improved
spelling outcomes have also been achieved using structured peer tutoring. For younger
students with LDs, practice activities should be introduced as soon as the students can recognize
15 letters of the alphabet (Harwell, 2001). For older students with LDs, study and word practice
should be conducted in meaningful contexts.

Components of Effective Instruction

Wanzek and colleagues (2006) conducted a synthesis to identify the components that are
required for effective instructional strategies. Wanzek and colleagues identified four key
components that are required for any spelling program for students with learning disabilities:

1. systematic study
2. immediate corrective feedback
3. repeated practice; and
4. teaching of rules and/or morphology.

The interventions listed above include various levels of these four components. It should also be
noted that students with LDs did best when the program included explicit instruction of spelling
rules in combination with immediate feedback from teacher or peer (Telecsan, Slaton, &
Stephens, 1999; Wanzek et al., 2006).

Technology

Technology for spelling can be broken into two main categories: (a) technology designed
to improve spelling skills (e.g. software titles that teach spelling rules) and (b) technology
designed to compensate for limited spelling skills.

Technology to Instruct - Computer-assisted instruction is related to increased motivation and

positive gains in spelling when used in combination with time delay instructional delivery (Fulk
& Stormont-Spurgin, 1995; Gordon et al., 1993; Wanzek et al., 2006). Gordon, Vaughn, and
Schumm(1993) reported that students with LD prefer multisensory training that includes a
range of components such as auditory feedback (e.g. the write-and-say method) and keyboard
input for practice (e.g. spelling software package). It should be noted that teaching spelling
without explicit instruction of rules does not improve spelling of words with unpredictable
spelling (Kohnen, Nickels, & Coltheart, 2010).

Technology to Compensate – Technologies such as spell check and word prediction do not
directly improve students’ abilities to spell. There are advantages to using these tools,
however. By “outsourcing” the task of spelling to the software, the student can concentrate on
higher-level mental tasks such as planning the writing and organizing ideas. In some ways, using
spelling technology as compensatory means that the teacher is putting more emphasis on the
quality of the expressive writing, rather than the accuracy of the spelling. Teachers should
carefully consider the overall goals of each writing task when deciding which technology to use.

Related Resources from the LD@school Website

The article, Helping Students with Learning Disabilities to Improve their Spelling through a
Reading-Writing Workshop, offers educators a four-step approach to helping students improve
their spelling skills. Click here to access the article.

Click here to access the Ask the Experts answer to the question, "How can technology be used to
help students with spelling difficulties to edit their writing?", answered by DJ Cunningham

Click here to access the evidence-based article,  Strategies to Develop Handwriting and Improve
Literacy Skills

Click here to access the evidence-based article, Interventions for Students with Writing
Disabilities

Click here to access the Ask the Experts answer to the question, "What strategies can be used for
teaching reading and writing to intermediate age students with LDs?", answered by Nathalie
Paquet-Bélanger

Additional Resources

The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) has put together a list of apps that will
help support students with dysgraphia and writing difficulties. With some trial and error,
hopefully one or more of these apps may be a good fit to help your students needing some extra
support with their spelling. Click here to access the list of apps from NCLD.

LD online has put together a short list of suggestions for teaching spelling to students with
LDs. Click here to access the list from LDonline.

LD online has also put together a set of five guidelines that you can share with your students who
are struggling with learning to spell. You can share the strategies directly with your older
students or guide your younger students through them. Click here to access the guidelines from
LDonline.
References

Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior
problems (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bowers, P. & Kirby, J. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary

acquisition. Reading and Writing, 23, 515-537.

Carlisle, J. F. (2007). Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and reading

comprehension. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary
acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 78–103). NY: Guilford
Press.Carruthers, P. & Smith P. (eds). 1996. Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge
University Press.

Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in
Language Disorders, 20(3), 19–36.

Friend, A. & Olson, R. (2008). Phonological spelling and reading deficits in children with
spelling disabilities. Scientific Studies in Reading, 12,  90-105.

Fulk, B. M., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995). Spelling interventions for students with
disabilities: A review. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 488–513.

Gordon, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1993). Spelling interventions: A review of literature
and implications for instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 8,  175–181.

Gettinger, M., Bryant, N. D., & Fayne, H. R. (1982). Designing spelling instruction for learning-
disabled children: An emphasis on unit size, distributed practice, and training for transfer. The
Journal of Special Education, 16, 439–448.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing. In
H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–
344). New York, NY: Guilford.

Graham, S., Harris, K. & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and
self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy
development. Contemporary Education Psychology, 30, 207-241.

Harwell, J. (2001). Complete Learning Disabilities Handbook (2nd Ed.) San Fransisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kohnen, S., Nickels, L., & Coltheart, M. (2010). Skill generalisation in teaching spelling to
children with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15, 115-129.
Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and
achievement in six classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 145–162.

Nulman, J. & Gerber, M. (1984). Improving spelling performance by imitating a child’s

errors. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 328-333.

Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. New York:
Routlege.

Reid, R., Lienemann, T. & Hagaman, J. (2013). Strategy instruction for students with learning
disabilities: Second edition. K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.  

Sayeski, K. (2011). Effective spelling instruction for students with learning

disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 75-81.

Schagel, R. C. (2002). Classroom spelling instruction: History, research, and practice. Reading

Research and Instruction, 42(1),44–57.

Telecsan, B. L., Slaton, D. B., & Stephens, D. B. (1999). Peer tutoring: Teaching students with
learning disabilities to deliver time delay instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 133–
154.

Vaughn, S. & Bos, C. (2009). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behaviour
problems (7thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson.

Varnhagen, C. K., McCallum, M., & Burstow, M. (1997). Is children’s spelling naturally stage-
like? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 451–481.

Wendling, B. & Mather, N. (2009). Essentials of evidence-based academic interventions. A. S.

Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman (Eds.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., & Kim, A. (2006). A synthesis
of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with
LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 528-543.

Card, N. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.

O’Connor, S. (1992). Network theory: A systematic method for literature review. Nurse

Education Today, 12, 44-50.

Ryan, R., Scapens, R., & Theobald, M. (1991). Research methods and methodologies in
accounting and finance. London, UK: Academic Press.