Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Incidental and informal methods of learning to spell should replace more traditional and direct instructional procedures, according to advocates of the natural learning approach. This proposition is based on 2 assumptions: (a) Spelling competence can be acquired without instruction and (b) reading and writing are the primary vehicles for learning to spell. There is only partial support for these assumptions. First, very young children who receive little or no spelling instruction do as well as their counterparts in more traditional spelling programs, but the continued effects of no instruction beyond first grade are unknown. Second, reading and writing contribute to spelling development, but their overall impact is relatively modest. Consequently, there is little support for replacing traditional spelling instruction with the natural learning approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)235-247
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Educational Psychology
Volume92
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jun 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Learning
instruction
learning
Reading
Mental Competency
school grade

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction? / Graham, Stephen.

In: Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 2, 06.2000, p. 235-247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6e51860e004440e8b047f442d4bd6dc1,
title = "Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction?",
abstract = "Incidental and informal methods of learning to spell should replace more traditional and direct instructional procedures, according to advocates of the natural learning approach. This proposition is based on 2 assumptions: (a) Spelling competence can be acquired without instruction and (b) reading and writing are the primary vehicles for learning to spell. There is only partial support for these assumptions. First, very young children who receive little or no spelling instruction do as well as their counterparts in more traditional spelling programs, but the continued effects of no instruction beyond first grade are unknown. Second, reading and writing contribute to spelling development, but their overall impact is relatively modest. Consequently, there is little support for replacing traditional spelling instruction with the natural learning approach.",
author = "Stephen Graham",
year = "2000",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "235--247",
journal = "Journal of Educational Psychology",
issn = "0022-0663",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction?

AU - Graham, Stephen

PY - 2000/6

Y1 - 2000/6

N2 - Incidental and informal methods of learning to spell should replace more traditional and direct instructional procedures, according to advocates of the natural learning approach. This proposition is based on 2 assumptions: (a) Spelling competence can be acquired without instruction and (b) reading and writing are the primary vehicles for learning to spell. There is only partial support for these assumptions. First, very young children who receive little or no spelling instruction do as well as their counterparts in more traditional spelling programs, but the continued effects of no instruction beyond first grade are unknown. Second, reading and writing contribute to spelling development, but their overall impact is relatively modest. Consequently, there is little support for replacing traditional spelling instruction with the natural learning approach.

AB - Incidental and informal methods of learning to spell should replace more traditional and direct instructional procedures, according to advocates of the natural learning approach. This proposition is based on 2 assumptions: (a) Spelling competence can be acquired without instruction and (b) reading and writing are the primary vehicles for learning to spell. There is only partial support for these assumptions. First, very young children who receive little or no spelling instruction do as well as their counterparts in more traditional spelling programs, but the continued effects of no instruction beyond first grade are unknown. Second, reading and writing contribute to spelling development, but their overall impact is relatively modest. Consequently, there is little support for replacing traditional spelling instruction with the natural learning approach.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034195029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034195029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 92

SP - 235

EP - 247

JO - Journal of Educational Psychology

JF - Journal of Educational Psychology

SN - 0022-0663

IS - 2

ER -