Posts Tagged ‘qualitative spelling inventory’

The Problem with Words Their Way

Alternatives to Words Their Way

The Problem with Words Their Way

Back in the late 1990s, I served as an elementary reading specialist in a large Northern California school district. Our cadre of 21 reading specialists were in-serviced on new word study program, Words Their Way. Dr. Shane Templeton, one of the authors, trained us for four days. Two of Dr. Templeton’s training components, the Qualitative Spelling Inventory (developed by colleague and fellow author, Dr. Donald Bear) and the developmental patterns of spelling, were novel approaches to word study. By the end of the fourth day, we reading specialists had bought in hook, line, and sinker to the Words Their Way program. Our 50,000-student district adopted the Qualitative Spelling Inventory as our K−6 diagnostic spelling assessment, and teachers used the test results to both place students in reading programs and differentiate instruction within the classroom.

The elementary school to which I was assigned was over 1,000 students and drew from lower to middle income, ethnically and language diverse neighborhoods. Our supportive principal purchased each staff member a copy of Words Their Way, I was allotted 10 two-hour staff developments, and we dug into teaching the program to our students.

By the end of two years, here’s what we teachers found: The Qualitative Spelling Inventory was a reliable placement assessment, alongside of our phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and writing sample assessments. Certainly, spelling ability is one key indicator of reading ability as recent studies have demonstrated (Adams, 2011; Gentry & Graham, 2010; Moats, 2005; Reed, 2012). However, the assessment gave only general information as to which developmental spelling stages matched our students’ spelling mastery. Diagnostic assessments, based upon random samples, which produce only general student data are problematic for teachers in the trenches. Teachers want comprehensive diagnostic assessments which pinpoint specific deficits. In other words, teachers want data to teach to. The Qualitative Spelling Inventory narrowed down the deficits, but was rather useless, according to my elementary school teachers, beyond its use as a placement tool. Teachers asked the legitimate question: Why can’t our placement assessments be teachable?

I took it upon myself to deliver what the teachers were asking for: a comprehensive diagnostic spelling assessment which would give teachers the tool to drive their instruction. Of course, the spelling assessment could not be the same for each grade level, but would add on additional spelling patterns appropriate to each grade level. My reading specialist colleagues and elementary staff were gracious and demanding in their revision suggestions. My Diagnostic Spelling Assessment in its five grade level iterations: Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 cover all K−3 spelling patterns as well as the grade-level additions. I also created an audio version of the assessment to make life easier for teachers (especially for make-ups and for new students). Yes, both written and audio versions and a progress-monitoring matrix are available in the FREE download at the end of this article.

After the first year of training and implementation of Words Their Way in my elementary school, only half of the teachers decided to continue the program for the next school year. By the end of the second year, only a handful continued use of the program. Why so?

  1. The program requires inordinate amounts of teacher prep and class time to implement with fidelity.
  2. The results from both standardized tests and teacher observations did not see the expected spelling improvement (nor reading and vocabulary improvement). That improvement did come two years later with the district’s adoption of the Open Court phonics program, albeit without a district-wide adoption of a spelling curriculum.
  3. Teachers began to see the Words Their Way word sorts as only one means of spelling practice and wanted to use other spelling instructional strategies. Notice that the program was not titled Spelling Their Way. Additionally, primary teachers, especially, questioned the accuracy the development stages. Their students and their spelling-reading instruction did not perfectly conform to and match each neatly described spelling stage. Intermediate and upper grades teachers found The Derivational Relations Stage to be an unwieldy creature to teach and did not see the pay-off for investing so much prep and instructional time in the program. As usual, teachers can be quite prescient when evaluating the application of theory into practice. Twenty years later, noted spelling researcher, J. Richard Gentry, PHD, echoed their concerns in his article, “Why America Can’t Read,”

Words Their Way is a guidebook for studying words; it is not a spelling curriculum. The original preface describes it purpose:  “…Ordered in this developmental format, Words Their Way complements the use of any existing phonics, spelling, and vocabulary curricula.

Dr. Gentry cites what he views to be the theoretical flaw in the Words Their Way program:

In Chapter 1 of Words Their Way (2016 edition) we learn the theoretical basis for this method of word study: “Developmental spelling researchers have examined the three layers of English orthography in relation to developmental progressions from alphabet to pattern to meaning.” (Bear, et al, 2000, p.5.) As a developmental spelling researcher, I beg to disagree. There is no developmental progression in the child’s brain when constructing word knowledge that proceeds over time from alphabet to pattern to meaning. Word knowledge of alphabet, pattern, and meaning are being constructed at every stage of spelling development (Gentry, 2000).

More importantly, spelling development does not continue to develop in phases or stages beyond a ceiling which usually happens near the end of first grade if kids are developmentally on track. I pointed this out in The Reading Teacher in a refereed journal article about sixteen years ago (Gentry, 2000).

Let me be specific. There is no developmental stage for Ages 10+ in Grades 5 to 12 called “The Derivational Relations Stage” as claimed in all editions of WTW. In fact, as spelling researcher Louisa Moats points out, Derivational Relations begins in first grade: Words in a first grade spelling curriculum are Anglo-Saxon regular consonant and vowel phone-grapheme correspondences along with words such as goatwifemotherlove, and house. They all have an alphabet layer, an Anglo-Saxon pattern, and a meaning layer. In fact, derivational constancy is so dominant in English at early levels that the 100 most frequently used words in English—the ones teachers should teach in first grade—can all be traced back to Anglo-Saxon origins. This debunks Word’s Their Way’s “alphabet, pattern, and meaning” stage theory which suggests that clusters of error types develop later in brain development.

Years later, I developed five grade-level spelling programs (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) to teach commonly acknowledged grade-level spelling patterns, using spelling sorts based upon specific spelling

Differentiated Spelling Instruction Grades 4-8

Differentiated Spelling Instruction

patterns, for example, the /ion/ sound-spelling patterns. No prep. Pretest, spelling sort, post test. Done. Check out my Differentiated Spelling Instruction programs or my Spelling Literacy Centers.

Plus, I included targeted, remedial spelling pattern worksheets to correspond to each grade-level Diagnostic Spelling Assessment. Each worksheet explains the spelling pattern, provides examples, includes a spelling sort, has a word jumble, rhyme, and/or book search, and includes a short formative assessment to determine whether or not the student has mastered the spelling pattern. For example, the grade 4 program includes all K−3 spelling patterns, the grade 5 program includes all all K−4 spelling patterns, etc.

Get the Diagnostic Spelling Assessment, Mastery Matrix, and Sample Lessons FREE Resource:

Literacy Centers, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Writing , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Spelling Scope and Sequence

For many teachers, spelling instruction has taken a back seat to other instruction, especially in the ELA middle and high school classrooms. Perhaps this has been the case because of so many years in which spelling was relegated to an editing-only issue at the tail end of the writing process. Or perhaps this has been the case because of so many years in which spelling was considered as part to whole instruction rather than in the predominant whole to part instruction of whole language reading and constructivism. Or perhaps this has been the case because of so many years in which spelling was considered as the stepchild of vocabulary. Spelling workbooks, once a staple in both the elementary and secondary classrooms, were removed from supplemental program lists at district and state levels. However, things are changing. Educators who once thought that spelling word check would solve students’ spelling and writing issues are squarely facing the fact that they do have a responsibility to teach spelling patterns.

In fact, most all teachers support teaching some form of simple to complex instructional order in teaching spelling. For example, students need to be able to spell plurals for singular nouns with an ending prior to learning that nouns ending in /ch/, /sh/, /x/, /s/, or are spelled with “es” prior to learning nouns ending in /f/ are spelling with “ves” prior to learning about irregular plurals such as children and deer prior to learning about Latin plural spellings such as “” and “ae.” In other words, the simple academic language and grammatical instruction should precede the more complex. We have supportive (and recent–as of January 2016) educational research to validate this instructional order:

Here’s the research to support simple to complex instructional order…

In a January 2016 article, the American Psychological Association published a helpful article titled Practice for Knowledge Acquisition (Not Drill and Kill) in which researchers summarize how instructional practice should be ordered: “Deliberate practice involves attention, rehearsal and repetition and leads to new knowledge or skills that can later be developed into more complex knowledge and skills… (Campitelli & Gobet, 2011).”

Of course, spelling instruction (like grammar and usage instruction) is certainly recursive. Once the simple is taught to “mastery” and the complex is introduced, the simple is always re-taught and practiced in other instructional contexts. For example, teachers will need to teach and re-teach the before spelling rule yearly from third grade through high school.

The Common Core Standards present a simple to complex instructional scope and sequence in the Language Strand Standards… albeit less so in the spelling Standards.

However, grade-level Language Strand Standards do not include a comprehensive spelling scope and sequence. A few examples from the L.2 Standards prove this out. Again, check out the simple to complex instructional order for the capitalization Standards.

The Conventions of Standard English (Standard 2) requires students to “Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing.”

  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.K.2.D  Spell simple words phonetically, drawing on knowledge of sound-letter relationships.
  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.2.D  Use conventional spelling for words with common spelling patterns and for frequently occurring irregular words.
  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.2.E  Spell untaught words phonetically, drawing on phonemic awareness and spelling conventions.
  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.2.2.C  Use an apostrophe to form contractions and frequently occurring possessives.
  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.2.2.D  Generalize learned spelling patterns when writing words (e.g., cage → badge; boy → boil).
  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.3.2.E  Use conventional spelling for high-frequency and other studied words and for adding suffixes to base words (e.g., sitting, smiled, cries, happiness).
  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.3.2.F  Use spelling patterns and generalizations (e.g., word families, position-based spellings, syllable patterns, ending rules, meaningful word parts) in writing words.
  •  CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.2.D and 5.2.D  Spell grade-appropriate words correctly, consulting references as needed.
  • CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.6.2.B, etc.  Spell correctly.
 After grade 3 the Common Core State Standards provide no specific spelling pattern Standards.

So, to summarize… Both educational research and the authors of the Common Core State Standards validate a simple to more complex mechanics sequence of instruction.

How Should This Affect My Spelling Instruction?

The simple to complex instructional order is clearly conducive to spelling patterns instruction. Students need to master the basic sound-spellings and sight words before moving on to more complex spelling patterns influenced by derivational affixes and roots. 

A spelling program with a comprehensive instructional scope and sequence, aligned to the Common Core Language Standards, College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards, and/or State Standards provides a well-defined instructional order.

Site levels (and districts) need to plan a comprehensive year-to-year scope and sequence for spelling instruction. The Common Core State Standards provide bare bones exemplars or benchmarks, but educators need to fill in the blanks. Students will not improve spelling by reading and writing alone. Students need more spelling instruction than a weekly pre and post test, a personal spelling errors notebook, or simply being required to spelling content vocabulary words correctly. Spelling instruction is sequential.

A Model Grades 4-8 Spelling Scope and Sequence

Preview the Grades 4-8 Spelling Scope and Sequence tied to the author’s comprehensive grades 4-8 Language Strand programs. The instructional scope and sequence includes grammar, usage, mechanics, spelling, and vocabulary. Teachers and district personnel are authorized to print and share this planning tool, with proper credit and/or citation. Why reinvent the wheel? Also check out my articles on Grammar Scope and Sequence, Mechanics Scope and Sequence, and Vocabulary Scope and Sequence.

Also check out the diagnostic spelling assessment and recording matrices on the Pennington Publishing website.


Pennington Publishing's Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary (Teaching the Language Strand) Grades 4-8 Programs

Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary (Teaching the Language Strand) Grades 4-8 Programs

The author of this article, Mark Pennington, has written the assessment-based grades 4-8 Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary (Teaching the Language Strand)  programs to teach the Common Core Language Strand Standards. Each full-year program provides 56 interactive grammar, usage, and mechanics worksheets and includes sentence diagrams, error analysis, mentor texts, writing applications, and sentence dictation formative assessments with accompanying worksheets (L.1, 2). Plus, each grade-level program has weekly spelling pattern tests and accompanying spelling sort worksheets (L.2), 56 language application opener worksheets (L.3), and 56 vocabulary worksheets with multiple-meaning words, Greek and Latin word parts, figures of speech, word relationships with context clue practice, connotations, and four square academic language practice (L.4, 5, and 6). Comprehensive biweekly unit tests measure recognition, understanding, and application of all language components.

The program also has the resources to meet the needs of diverse learners. Diagnostic grammar, usage, mechanics, and spelling assessments provide the data to enable teachers to individualize instruction with targeted worksheets. Each remedial worksheet (over 200 per program) includes independent practice and a brief formative assessment. Students CATCH Up on previous unmastered Standards while they KEEP UP with current grade-level Standards. Check out the YouTube introductory video of the author’s program.

[pdf-embedder url=””]

Spelling/Vocabulary , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Spelling Assessment Questions and Answers

I love spelling instruction. Not the give the pretest on Monday; give ’em a crossword puzzle of the words on Tuesday; give ’em a word search on Wednesday; tell ’em to study on Thursday; and test ’em on the same words Friday kind of spelling instruction.

I love the kind of grade-level spelling instruction that sticks with kids (and adults). The kind that makes use of our alphabetic code; the kind that uses spelling patterns and values “spelling rules” (which do work most of the time); the kind that uses a problem-solving approach to word analysis (yes… spelling sorts); the kind that does hold students accountable for spelling errors in their own writing; and the kind that makes use of the Monday pretest as a diagnostic instrument and the Friday posttest as a formative assessment.

That said, as an author of numerous spelling programs and an often-used Diagnostic Spelling Assessment, I get two questions quite frequently: 1. Does a diagnostic spelling assessment make sense? and 2. How can we use the weekly pretest as a diagnostic assessment? But I’ll let teachers ask those questions in their own words…

1. How can teachers address spelling needs for students who are spelling at a grade 1/2 level and are in grade 5/6? How would you give the diagnostic test to these low level students who cannot even spell “rag” or “top?”

August 11, 2013 

RESPONSE: Great question! An effective diagnostic spelling assessment has to isolate and test specific sound-spellings. The trick is to do so with words which assess specific student knowledge about that spelling pattern and nothing else.

With most remedial spellers, such as your hypothetical 5/6 student, these students have had to develop a quite sophisticated set of coping mechanisms and survival skills to be able to read and/or spell anything at all. These students have become sight-word dependent, using word recognition skills, rather than word identification skills to memorize individual spelling words. In all likelihood the student has learned to read via “Dick and Jane” look-say methods or onset-rhyme techniques, rather than through explicit and systematic phonics instruction. But not necessarily. An effective diagnostic spelling assessment has to isolate that variable to really assess what needs to be assessed.

In your question you refer to the short a, as in “rag,” and the short o as in “top.” Rather than use these words as test items (which most 5/6 students would know), a good assessment uses multisyllabic words to isolate and assess those sound-spellings to isolate the variable of sight-spelling knowledge. That’s good internal and external validity in assessment-speak.

The author of this article has such a comprehensive diagnostic assessment (See author tag below for links) to address this issue. For example, the first spelling word on the assessment is “bumper.” The word “bumper” is used, rather than “bump” or “bun” to assess the short u because most remedial spellers, such as your 5/6 student will not know this word as a sight-spelling.

In correcting that item, the teacher is instructed only to correct the short vowel u. So if the student spells “bumpr,” than it is correct. Another spelling test item will catch the “er” spelling deficit.

2. What’s the use of giving a spelling pretest if the posttest is the same list of words?

June 3, 2012

RESPONSE: I agree with your sentiments. The pretest is a waste of time, unless we make use of it as a diagnostic assessment. Furthermore (I’ve always wanted to use that transition), giving a posttest of the same words is just silly. Why should students have to practice and study, then be re-tested on words they already know? Here’s how to make sense of both the spelling pretest and spelling posttest:

1. Administer the weekly pretest.

2. After completing this diagnostic pretest, display the spelling words and direct students to self-correct their spelling errors by circling the misspelled sound-spellings.

3. Have students create their own Personal Spelling List of 15 words and have a parent sign the list. Students complete the Personal Spelling List in this priority order:

  • Pretest Errors: Have students write the spelling words they missed on the pretest.
  • Posttest Errors: Have students write the words they missed on the last posttest.
  • Writing Errors: Have students add on teacher-corrected spelling errors found in their own writing.
  • Supplemental Spelling Lists: Students add on unknown words from non-phonetic outlaw words, commonly confused homonyms, spelling demons, and high frequency lists.

4. On the next class day briefly explain the spelling pattern focus of the pretest. My bias (and that of the Common Core authors in the appendices) is that we should be teaching grade-level spelling patterns, not silly themed word lists. If using a spelling patterns pretest, help students learn and problem-solve the patterns through a spelling sort. Avoid useless crossword puzzles, word searches, and write each word ten times approaches. Please.

5. Students study their Personal Spelling List(s) for the spelling formative posttest. Many teachers elect to give the spelling posttest at the end of the week; others choose to combine two spelling patterns lessons and include these as part of the bi-weekly unit test. I give a bi-weekly test of two Personal Spelling Lists to save class time. There is no law saying that you have to test each Friday.

6. To administer the weekly or bi-weekly posttest, direct students to take out a piece of binder paper, find a partner, and exchange dictation of their Personal Spelling List(s) words (10‒20 Minutes weekly or bi-weekly). Students then turn in their posttests for the teacher to grade. I know… you think they’ll cheat. In my experience, very few do. Also… this works with second graders (I’ve done it) on up.

Those teachers who want to take spelling instruction beyond just grade-level instruction and begin individualizing instruction based upon a comprehensive diagnostic spelling assessment (not a simple qualitative spelling inventory) will appreciate the author’s Remedial Spelling Patterns Instruction training video.

The author of this article, Mark Pennington, has written the assessment-based Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary (Teaching the Language Strand) Grades 4-8 programs to teach the
Common Core grammar, usage, mechanics, spelling, and vocabulary Standards. Diagnostic assessments and targeted worksheets help your students catch up while they keep up with rigorous grade-level direct instruction.

Spelling/Vocabulary , , , , , , ,