English Language Arts

Spelling acquisition has long been a difficult for many student students to learn and apply

to their daily writing. The ​research project​ that accompanies this paper shows how I used

foundational instructional strategies based on research to improve spelling retention with a mixed

level group of students. ​The purpose of the study was to adapt the theory behind mastery of

learning to spelling instruction, while including continual review of previously learned words to

improve student’s retention of spelling words.

I was able to do this by first researching the spelling instruction and finding theorist that

shaped my practice. One theory about spelling acquisition is that spelling needs to be taught

using explicit instruction (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). This theory suggests that students need

to be directly and systematically taught how to spell in formal instruction that includes methods

like spelling word practice, learning rules, skills, strategies to figure out unknown words, and

word study activities. Studies also have shown that students who received direct instruction

out-performed students who learned through discovery and self-directed programs (Simonsent &

Gunter, 2001). Based on the success from the literature, explicit instruction was used in this

study.

Another instructional strategy that has been demonstrated to increase student retention of

spelling words is a continual review of words previously studied, along with a variety of

practicing strategies (Simonsent & Gunter, 2001). Because spelling is such a complex subject

that involves many different stages that include regular and irregularly spelled words, more than

one instructional strategy is needed to ensure student success. Phonemic, whole-word, and
morphemic approaches to spelling instruction present a solid set of methods for teaching students

to spell accurately (Simonsent & Gunter, 2001). Multiple instructional strategies were used in

this study to support the different stages of spelling for each of my students.

Mastery learning is another instructional approach to teaching that should be included as

a teaching strategy. It requires students to master a topic before moving on to a new one, (Bloom,

1971). Mastery learning has been researched and used for over 40 years in classrooms across the

country with a high level of success (Guskey, 2010). While there is strong evidence that supports

mastery learning, there are some who question its use in schools today, with good reason.

According to Wiggins (2013), mastery learning should not be for the purpose of memorizing

isolated facts to be parroted back at a later point, as is done in many school across the country.

True mastery learning is learning that is transferable (Wiggins, 2013). During the research study

presented with this paper, I found this to be true and used this theory to improve my spelling

instruction.

There were several theories that informed my position on spelling instruction with the

goal of student retention in spelling. The first is Atkinson and Shiffrin’s multistore model of

memory (1968), recognized as the Modal Model​. This theory suggests that ​maintenance

rehearsal, the process of repeatedly verbalizing or thinking about a piece of information, is

necessary in order for information to be taken from short term memory and deposited into the

long term memory store, otherwise the information is removed from short term memory through

a process of displacement or decay (McLeod, 2007). This study used maintenance rehearsal, or

continual review, to help students retain the spelling words they had learned.
 The second theory I used was based on Bruner’s (1960) constructivist theory, that says

curriculum directly affects learning. He asserted that as the curriculum develops, the ideas

presented should be revisited repeatedly, like a spiral, while building on those ideas

incrementally (Xuan & Perkins, 2013). This theory directly affected how I focused my spelling

instruction, which included continual review of learned spelling rules to be applied to new words

given, while slowly adding new spelling rules as the student masters them.

Bloom’s (1971) theory of mastery of learning ties well into Bruner’s constructivist theory

because of the requirement for students to build a solid foundation, reviewing concepts until they

are learned, while the material spirals upward toward a solid mastery of the content presented.

Mastery of learning also suggests that most students can achieve mastery, though they may do it

at different rates and with different levels of support (Guskey, 2010). I used this theory of

mastery of learning to help my students to achieve mastery of spelling words by teaching them

their words using various strategies, offering practice, testing for mastery, providing feedback for

missed words, requiring continued practice of choice, and then retesting until mastery was

achieved.
 References

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. ​The psychology of learning and

motivation​ (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195.

Bloom, B.S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J.H. Block (Ed.), ​Mastery learning: Theory and

practice ​(pp.47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). ​The process of education. ​Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Graham, S., & Santangelo, T., (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better

spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. ​Reading & Writing​, ​27​(9),

1703-1743, doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0.

Guskey, T. R. (2010). Lessons of mastery learning. ​Educational Leadership​, ​68​(2), 52-57.

McLeod, S. (2007, January 01). Levels of Processing. Retrieved September 30, 2018, from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/multi-store.html

Simonsent, F., & Gunter, L. (2001). Best practices in spelling instruction: A research summary.

Journal of Direct Instruction​, ​1​(2), 97-105. Retrieved from

https://www.nifdi.org/research/journal-of-di/volume-1-no-2-summer-2001/428-best-pract

ices-in-spelling-instruction-a-research-summary/file

Wiggins, G. (2013). How good is good enough? (cover story). ​Educational Leadership,​

71​(4), 10-16.
Xuan Jiang1, & Perkins, K. (2013). A Conceptual Paper on the Application of the Picture Word

Inductive Model Using Bruner’s Constructivist View of Learning and the Cognitive Load

Theory. ​Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching & Learning​, ​3​(1), 8–17. Retrieved from

https://egan.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir

ect=true&db=eft&AN=87695328&site=ehost-live