Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review

Stephen Graham, Tanya Santangelo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

78 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite the importance of spelling for both writing and reading, there is considerable disagreement regarding how spelling skills are best acquired. During this and virtually all of the last century, some scholars have argued that spelling should not be directly or formally taught as such instruction is not effective or efficient. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies to address these claims. The corpus of 53 studies in this review included 6,037 students in kindergarten through 12th grade and yielded 58 effect sizes (ESs) that were used to answer eight research questions concerning the impact of formally teaching spelling on spelling, phonological awareness, reading, and writing performance. An average weighted ES was calculated for each question and the quality of included studies was systematically evaluated. Results provided strong and consistent support for teaching spelling, as it improved spelling performance when compared to no/unrelated instruction (ES = 0.54) or informal/incidental approaches to improving spelling performance (ES = 0.43). Increasing the amount of formal spelling instruction also proved beneficial (ES = 0.70). Gains in spelling were maintained over time (ES = 0.53) and generalized to spelling when writing (ES = 0.94). Improvements in phonological awareness (ES = 0.51) and reading skills (ES = 0.44) were also found. The positive outcomes associated with formal spelling instruction were generally consistent, regardless of students’ grade level or literacy skills.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1703-1743
Number of pages41
JournalReading and Writing
Volume27
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Reading
writer
Students
instruction
Teaching
student
Meta-Analysis
school grade
Research
performance
kindergarten
literacy
Non-Randomized Controlled Trials
Literacy

Keywords

  • Meta-analysis
  • Reading
  • Spelling
  • Writing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. / Graham, Stephen; Santangelo, Tanya.

In: Reading and Writing, Vol. 27, No. 9, 2014, p. 1703-1743.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f4fbc0c7f8404618ac7c78a7e23aefea,
title = "Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review",
abstract = "Despite the importance of spelling for both writing and reading, there is considerable disagreement regarding how spelling skills are best acquired. During this and virtually all of the last century, some scholars have argued that spelling should not be directly or formally taught as such instruction is not effective or efficient. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies to address these claims. The corpus of 53 studies in this review included 6,037 students in kindergarten through 12th grade and yielded 58 effect sizes (ESs) that were used to answer eight research questions concerning the impact of formally teaching spelling on spelling, phonological awareness, reading, and writing performance. An average weighted ES was calculated for each question and the quality of included studies was systematically evaluated. Results provided strong and consistent support for teaching spelling, as it improved spelling performance when compared to no/unrelated instruction (ES = 0.54) or informal/incidental approaches to improving spelling performance (ES = 0.43). Increasing the amount of formal spelling instruction also proved beneficial (ES = 0.70). Gains in spelling were maintained over time (ES = 0.53) and generalized to spelling when writing (ES = 0.94). Improvements in phonological awareness (ES = 0.51) and reading skills (ES = 0.44) were also found. The positive outcomes associated with formal spelling instruction were generally consistent, regardless of students’ grade level or literacy skills.",
keywords = "Meta-analysis, Reading, Spelling, Writing",
author = "Stephen Graham and Tanya Santangelo",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "1703--1743",
journal = "Reading and Writing",
issn = "0922-4777",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review

AU - Graham, Stephen

AU - Santangelo, Tanya

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Despite the importance of spelling for both writing and reading, there is considerable disagreement regarding how spelling skills are best acquired. During this and virtually all of the last century, some scholars have argued that spelling should not be directly or formally taught as such instruction is not effective or efficient. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies to address these claims. The corpus of 53 studies in this review included 6,037 students in kindergarten through 12th grade and yielded 58 effect sizes (ESs) that were used to answer eight research questions concerning the impact of formally teaching spelling on spelling, phonological awareness, reading, and writing performance. An average weighted ES was calculated for each question and the quality of included studies was systematically evaluated. Results provided strong and consistent support for teaching spelling, as it improved spelling performance when compared to no/unrelated instruction (ES = 0.54) or informal/incidental approaches to improving spelling performance (ES = 0.43). Increasing the amount of formal spelling instruction also proved beneficial (ES = 0.70). Gains in spelling were maintained over time (ES = 0.53) and generalized to spelling when writing (ES = 0.94). Improvements in phonological awareness (ES = 0.51) and reading skills (ES = 0.44) were also found. The positive outcomes associated with formal spelling instruction were generally consistent, regardless of students’ grade level or literacy skills.

AB - Despite the importance of spelling for both writing and reading, there is considerable disagreement regarding how spelling skills are best acquired. During this and virtually all of the last century, some scholars have argued that spelling should not be directly or formally taught as such instruction is not effective or efficient. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies to address these claims. The corpus of 53 studies in this review included 6,037 students in kindergarten through 12th grade and yielded 58 effect sizes (ESs) that were used to answer eight research questions concerning the impact of formally teaching spelling on spelling, phonological awareness, reading, and writing performance. An average weighted ES was calculated for each question and the quality of included studies was systematically evaluated. Results provided strong and consistent support for teaching spelling, as it improved spelling performance when compared to no/unrelated instruction (ES = 0.54) or informal/incidental approaches to improving spelling performance (ES = 0.43). Increasing the amount of formal spelling instruction also proved beneficial (ES = 0.70). Gains in spelling were maintained over time (ES = 0.53) and generalized to spelling when writing (ES = 0.94). Improvements in phonological awareness (ES = 0.51) and reading skills (ES = 0.44) were also found. The positive outcomes associated with formal spelling instruction were generally consistent, regardless of students’ grade level or literacy skills.

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Reading

KW - Spelling

KW - Writing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908416731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908416731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

DO - 10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 1703

EP - 1743

JO - Reading and Writing

JF - Reading and Writing

SN - 0922-4777

IS - 9

ER -