Children with only spelling (n=24) or handwriting and spelling disabilities (n=24) were randomly assigned to a pencil or computer response mode. They were taught 48 words of varying orders of sound-spelling predictability using a method that emphasized hearing the word in the mind's ear and seeing the word in the mind's eye and making connections between the phonological and orthographic representations at the whole word and subword levels. Although no main effects were found for response mode, at posttest the pencil was superior to the computer for easy orders (single-letter spelling units with high sound-spelling predictability), but the computer was superior to the pencil for moderate and difficult orders (multiletter spelling units with intermediate or low sound-spelling predictability). Prior to and in response to treatment, children with handwriting and spelling problems spelled less well than children with only spelling problems. Multiletter spelling units of moderate or difficult orders of sound-spelling predictability explained unique increments of variance in spelling achievement, whereas single-letter spelling units of easy order of sound-spelling predictability did not. Based on these findings, instructional recommendations are to provide explicit instruction in the correspondence between sound and multiletter spelling units.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottR.BerningerV. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary and intermediate grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology; 85(3), 478–508.
2.
BarronR. (1995). The sound-to-spelling connection: Orthographic activation in auditory word recognition and its implications for the acquisition of phonological awareness and literary skills. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge I: Theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 219–242). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3.
BerningerV. W. (1994). Reading and writing acquisition. A developmental neuropsychological perspective. Madison, WI: W. C. Brown & Benchmark. Reprinted by Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1996.
4.
BerningerV. (in press). Early intervention for reading disabilities: Teaching the alphabet principle in a connectionist framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
5.
BerningerV.AbbottR.WhitakerD.SylvesterL.NolenS. (1995). Integrating low-level and high-level skills in treatment protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293–309.
6.
BerningerV.VaughanK.AbbottR.AbbottS.RoganL.BrooksA.ReedE.GrahamS. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.
7.
BerningerV.YatesC. K.CartwrightA.RutbergJ.RemyE.AbbottR. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257–280.
8.
BrykA.RaudenbushS.CongdonF. (1996). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago: Scientific Software.
9.
CunninghamA.StanovichK. (1990). Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 159–162.
10.
DreyerL.LukeS.MelicanE. (1995). Children's acquisition and retention of word spellings. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge II: Relationships to phonology, reading and writing (pp. 291–320). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11.
EhriL. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
EhriL. (in press). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In RiebenL.PerfettiC.FayolM. (Eds.), Learning to spell. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
GerberM.HallR. (1987). Information processing approaches to studying spelling deficiencies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 34–42.
15.
GrahamS.HarrisK.LoynachanC. (1993). The basic spelling vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363–368.
16.
GrahamS.HarrisK.LoynachanC. (1994). The spelling for writing list. Journal of Learning Difficulties, 27, 210–214.
17.
GrahamS.WeintraubN. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8 (1), 7–87.
18.
HulmeC.BradleyL. (1984). An experimental study of multisensory teaching with normal and retarded readers. In MalateshaR.WhitakerH. (Eds.), Dyslexia: A global issue (pp. 431–443). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
19.
LeongC. K.JoshiR. M. (in press). Relating phonologic and orthographic processing to learning to read and spell. In LeongC. K.JoshiM. (Eds.), Cross-language studies of learning to read and spell: Phonologic and orthographic processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
20.
LundbergI.FrostJ.PetersonO. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in pre-school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
21.
MoatsL. (1994). Assessment of spelling in learning difficulties research. In LyonR. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning difficulties. New views on measurement issues (pp. 333–349). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
22.
MoatsL. (1995). Spelling: Development, difficulty, and instruction. Baltimore, MD: York Press.
23.
NulmanJ.GerberM. (1984). Improving spelling performance by imitating a child's errors. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 328–333.
TreimanR. (1993). Beginning to spell. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
VarnhagenC. (1995). Children's spelling strategies. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge II: Relationships to phonology, reading, and writing (pp. 251–290). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
27.
VarnhagenS.GerberM. (1984). Use of micro-computers for spelling assessment: Reasons to be cautious. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 266–270.
28.
VaughnS.SchummJ.GordonJ. (1992). Early spelling acquisition: Does writing really beat the computer?Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 223–228.
29.
VaughnS.SchummJ.GordonJ. (1993). Which motoric condition is most effective for teaching spelling to students with and without learning disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 191–198.
30.
VenezkyR. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
31.
VenezkyR. (1995). From orthography to psychology to reading. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge II: relationships to phonology, reading, and writing (pp. 23–46). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
32.
WagnerR.TorgesenJ.RashotteC. (1994). The development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73–87.
33.
WeschlerD. (1991). Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition. San Antonio: TX: Psychological Corporation.
34.
WilkinsonG. (1993). The Wide Range Achievement Test (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.
