Pratt-Struthers, J., Struthers, T. B., & Williams, R. L. (1983). The effects of the
Add-A-Word Spelling Program on spelling accuracy during creative writing.
Education & Treatment of Children, 6(3), 277-283.
The following is excerpted from PsychInfo.
Abstract . Examined whether correct spelling by 9 learning disabled students
(aged 10-12 yrs), placed in a special education resource room, could be increased in the context of creative writing through the use of C. A. McGuigan's (1975) add-a-word spelling program. Target words were those the Ss used frequently but consistently misspelled in their creative writing. Target words were placed on the add-a-word spelling program format using a multiple baseline across words. Interobserver checks were made for each misspelled word, and overall agreement was 100%. Ss' correct spelling of target words during their creative writing increased from 0% to a mean of over 90% after the words were introduced in the program. Results indicate generalization of accurately spelling words to creative writing assignments.
Stevens, K. B. & Schuster, J. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure
on the written spelling performance of a learning disabled student. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 10, 9-16.
The following is excerpted from Stevens & Schuster (1987).
Abstract . A constant time delay procedure was used to teach written spelling to an 11-year-old, school-labeled LD youngster who had severe spelling deficits. The time delay procedure is a near errorless instructional method that transfers stimulus control from a controlling stimulus (a prompt that signals the correct response) to a new stimulus
(a target response). As a result of a 5-second constant delay procedure the student acquired, maintained, and generalized 15 spelling words. The procedure is easy to

implement, requires little teacher preparation time, and results in a low student error rate.
In the absence of published time delay research with LD individuals, the results are encouraging. Based on our findings, the time delay procedures is a viable alternative for
LD students who have not benefited from traditional instructional procedures. Since the results of this study and those in the unpublished literature indicate that time delay procedure is effective, further examination with other LD students is warranted.
Method . The constant time delay procedure is a near errorless instructional method that transfers stimulus control from a controlling stimulus (a prompt that signals the correct response) to a new stimulus (a target response). This is accomplished by pairing the controlling stimulus with the new stimulus and systematically increasing the amount of time between their presentations. The interval between the presentation of the task request (new stimulus) and the teacher’s model/prompt (controlling stimulus) is systematically increased until the student emits the correct response before the controlling stimulus is presented. For example, the new stimulus (the task request, Spell
[target word]” is given to the student. Simultaneously, a printed model of the target word
(the controlling stimulus) is presented (zero-second delay) to allow the student to copy the model. After the model has been presented at the zero-second delay for a predetermined number of trials, the time between the task request and presentation of the model is systematically increased. This gives the student an opportunity to respond before the presentation of the model or to wait for the model if further prompting is required.

Gordon, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1993). Spelling interventions: A review of literature and implications for instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Practice, 8(3), 175-181.
The following is excerpted from Gordon, Vaughn & Schumm (1993).
Abstract . The purpose of this article is to summarize 17 spelling intervention studies for students with learning disabilities and provide implications for improved spelling instruction. Interventions are reviewed with respect to subjects, procedures, and results. Discussion focuses on typical spelling instruction and suggested spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities in the areas of error imitation and modeling, unit size, modality, computer-assisted instruction, peer tutoring, and study techniques.
17 Spelling Interventions
1. Individual instruction of four words in each condition on 4 consecutive days.
Bradley, L. (1981). The organization of motor patterns for spelling: An effective remedial strategy for backwards readers. Developmental Medical Child Neurology, 23, 83-
91.
2. Group instruction for 3 days, including: oral spelling, individual word presentation, worksheet practice, mastery training, corrective feedback, and distributed and cumulative practice.
Bryant, N. D. Drabin, I. R., & Gettinger, M. (1981). Effects of varying unit size on spelling achievement in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 14, 200-203.
3. Ten spelling words were taught in a 5 step study procedure during a 15-min training session.

Frank, A. R., Wacker, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Sagen, T. K. (1987). Effectiveness of a spelling study package for learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities
Research, 2, 110-118.
4. Interevntion included a standard dictation test and imitation-modeling procedure to
100% mastery. A second list of words with the same orthographic features was administered without instructions to promote generalization.
Gerber, M. M. (1986). Generalization of spelling strategies by learning disabled students as a result of contingent imitation/modeling and mastery criteria. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 19, 530-537.
5. Instruction included eight sessions over a 3-week period. Lessons for the experimental group incorporated reduced unit size, distributed practice and review, and training for transfer.
Gettinger, M., Bryant, N. D., & Gayne, H. R. (1982). Designing spelling instruction for learning disabled students: An emphasis on unit size, distributed practice, and training for transfer. Journal of Special Education, 16, 439-448.
6. Classwide peer tutoring.
Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., & Moore, J. (1991). Peer-mediated instruction: Teaching spelling to primary school children with mild disabilities. Reading, Writing, and
Learning Disabilities, 7, 137-151.
7. Groups were directed-study, student-controlled, or teacher-monitored groups.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Freeman, S. (1998). Effects of strategy training on metamemory among learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 54, 332-
338.

8. Spelling instruction was given for 30 minutes, 5 days per week. Twenty words were taught weekly for a 4-week period. Instruction consisted of phonics drill, drills with flashcards, and practice writing words on the chalkboard.
Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Haas, K., Brame, T., & Boren, R. (1978). Imitating children’s errors to improve their spelling performance.
Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 11, 217-222.
9. Subject received three 25-minute tutoring sessions each week with a time-delay computer-assisted instruction (CAI) procedure.
Kinney, P. G., Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1988). The effects of CAI and time delay: A systematic program for teaching spelling. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 9, 61-72.
10. Peer tutoring.
Mandoli, M., Mandoli, P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1982). Effects of same-age peer tutoring on the spelling performance of a mainstreamed elementary learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 185-189.
11. The teachers used strategic procedures emphasizing awareness of word structure and spelling strategies, combined with keyboard training in twice weekly, 45-minute sessions for 3 months.
Margalit, M., & Roth, Y. B. (1989). Strategic keyboard training and spelling improvement among children with learning disabilities and mental retardation.
Educational Psychology, 9, 321-329.

12. Intervention included a pretest, nine learning trials, and a test for transfer of learning.
Learning trials required the subject to say the words, and write them on a piece of paper.
A contingent imitation procedure was used if he misspelled a word.
Nulman, J. H., & Gerber, M. M. (1984). Improving spelling performance by imitating a child’s errors.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 328-333.
13. 5-second constant time delay.
Stevens, K. B. & Schuster, J. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure
on the written spelling performance of a learning disabled student. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 10, 9-16.
14. Subjects received spelling training under three experimental conditions that involved: writing, sorting letter tiles, or typing on the computer.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Gordon, J. (1992). Early spelling acquisition: Does writing really beat the computer? Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 223-228.
15. Subjects received spelling training under three experimental conditions that involved: writing, sorting letter tiles, or typing on the computer. Training procedures incorporated components of best instructional practice, examined student performance over time, and incorporated student interviews concerning condition preference.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Gordon, J. (1993). Which motoric condition is most effective for teaching spelling to students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 26, 191-197.
16. Computer assisted instruction – The Spelling Machine program

Watkins, M. W. (1989). Computerized drill-and-practice and academic attitudes of learning disabled students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 168-172. was taught concurrently with a self-questioning strategy.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). A cognitive approach to teaching spelling. Exceptional Children,
53, 169-173.
Following reviewed by Karyn Erkfritz
17. Structural word analysis Spelling Development
(Ehri, 2000)
1.
Prealphabetic level a.
Children may store salient visual stimuli for words (e.g. golden arches for
McDonald’s) b.
Children may produce scribbles for writing but may lack letter details
2.
Partial alphabetic level a.
Know names/sounds of alphabet letters b.
Can read/write words at semiphonetic level c.
Basic and incomplete knowledge d.
Vowel and consonant sounds not present in letter names are less wellknown e.
Spelling may be inventive and correct spellings may be difficult because they alck sufficient knowledge of the alphabetic system f.
Spellings are partial because it is still difficult to segment words into phonemes and because full knowledge of phoneme-grapheme isn’t developed
3.
Full alphabetic level a.
Can segment words into phonemes b.
Knowledge of conventional grapheme-phoneme correspondences including vowels c.
Inventive spellings are more complete and are able to stretch out sounds in words to spell them (may find that extra sounds are not symbolized in conventional spelling) d.
Understanding of the basic system that accounts for many letters in conventional spellings, easier to read/write e.
Have some words stored in memory in sufficient letter detail so that reading new words by analogy to familiar words is possible (e.g. rig, fig, big)
4.
Consolidated alphabetic level a.
Learning structure of larger units consisting of letter sequences that recur across different words

i.
Units may involve spellings of syllables, or parts of syllables, or affixes appearing at beginnings or endings of words ii.
Recurring blends of graphophonemic units become consolidated into larger units b.
Easier for students to decode and invent spellings of longer multisyllabic words.
*Correlations between reading and spelling .68 to .86
Prerequisite Skills
(Ehri, 2000)
1.
Knowledge of letters
2.
Ability to associate letters with sounds (e.g. t is “tee” This is referred to as grapheme-phoneme knowledge. This is important for reading.
3.
Ability to associate sounds with letters (e.g. “buh” is b). This is referred to as phoneme-grapheme knowledge. This is important for spelling.
4.
Knowledge of digraphs (e.g. “ch” or “ar”). These are two letters together that are pronounced or read differently than their spelling suggests.
Teach Spelling Rules
While this is not an empirically validated treatment, an appropriate intervention may be to teach a student the rules of spelling. A list of these rules can be found: http://www.dyslexia.org/spelling_rules.shtml
http://www.mc3.edu/aa/lal/workshops/wksp_spelling/spellingrules.html
(has practice exercises)
Attack Strategy (for beginning spellers)
(Ehri, 2000)
Involves inventing spellings of words
1.
Stretch out pronunciations
2.
Detect sound units
3.
Apply knowledge of alphabetic system to generate plausible letter sequences for the sounds
*Likelihood that spellers will generate correct letter sequences is limited
Cover-Copy-Compare
( http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/ccc.shtml
)
1.
Provide the child with a list of words written on the left hand side of a page.
2.
The teacher gives the student an index card.
3.
The student is directed to look at each correct item (e.g., correctly spelled word, computation problem with solution) on the left side of the page.
4.
The student is instructed to cover the correct model on the left side of the page with an index card and to spell the word in the space on the right of the sheet.
5.
The student then uncovers the correct answer on the left to check his or her work.
6.
If the student gets the word correct, they would give themselves +1

7.
If the student gets the word incorrect, they would have to write the word 3 times and not earn +1
8.
General Rule: a child has acquired the word if they get it correct in two consecutive trials
Constant Time Delay (Mushinski, & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995)
1.
Provide the student with a blank sheet of paper.
2.
The teacher would give the students the rules: “I will say a word, give it in a sentence, and then say it again. You must give me your best answer. If you get it right, you will earn 1 point. If you get it wrong, you will have to practice writing it correctly 3 times and will earn no points. If you do not know a word, you can sit and wait and then I will show you how to spell it. If you wait, you will not get any points, but will only have to write it once.”
3.
Wait 7 seconds before providing the student with the model. If they do not write anything or write an incorrect response, write the word on a note card and then have them copy it correctly three times (only if they missed it) or 1 time (if they waited for the model) on the lined paper.
*These interventions have been looked at with respect to students w/ LD:
Error Imitation and Modeling (Gordon, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1993)
This intervention is designed to directs students' attention to discrepancies between misspellings and correct spellings through imitation of errors prior to the presentation of models
When a child makes an error, use this corrective feedback procedure:
1.
Imitate the child’s error by rewriting it
2.
Then present a correct model (especially in the case of non-phonetically spelled words)
Considerations: Need a ‘sufficient’ number of trials
Peer Tutoring (Mandoli, Mandoli, & McLaughlin, 1982)
1.
Tutee meets 15 minutes a day with the peer tutor
2.
First 2 days, a modeling method was used, the adult presented the teaching procedure and the peer tutor was encouraged to follow it.
3.
On Day 3, the peer tutor conducted the entire session under the guidance of an adult representing a good example of academic behavior (The peer tutor should not require additional assistance beyond adult supervision in the room beyond
Day 3)
4.
The tutor read the words aloud, then asked the tutee to read the words
5.
Then the tutee was instructed to orally spell the words
6.
Flashcards and games were used to enhance the teaching process
7.
If the tutee got the words wrong, he had to write them out 10 times
8.
The tutor provided assistance, encouragement, helpful hints and praise to the tutee.

Study Techniques (Gordon, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1993)
1.
Propose a word to learn
2.
Correctly write the word or display the word with letter tiles
3.
Name the word
4.
Write the word
5.
Name the word again, check accuracy, and continue steps 2-4 until mastery
6.
Practice the word in this way for 6 consecutive days
Variation of steps:
1.
Say the word
2.
Write and say the word
3.
Check the word
4.
Trace and say the word
5.
Write the word from memory and check
6.
If the word is incorrect, repeat steps the first 5 steps
Variation of steps:
1.
Do I know this word?
2.
How many syllables do I hear in this word? (Write down the number)
3.
I’ll spell out the word
4.
Do I have the right number of syllables down?
5.
Now, does it look right to me?
6.
When I finish spelling, I’ll tell myself I’ve worked hard.
*May want to package with include interspersal with known and unknown words, use of positive practice and reinforcement, and possible teacher supervision of study sessions
Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (Graham, Harris, Loynachan, 1996)
This intervention is directed at improving spelling skills by contrasting spelling patterns
1.
Choose 2 or more patterns,1 that the student has at least some knowledge of, but lack of understanding of its application
2.
Contrast selected can include more than one spelling pattern and more than two patterns a.
E.g. Compare short vowel consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) with long vowel pattern marked by e (CVCe)
3.
Once contrast in selected, words are selected that illustrate target patterns. One or two exceptions are chosen to illustrate the consistencies/inconsistencies of
English orthography
4.
Lists with 10-12 words are suggested with students w/ LD, “typical” students 16-
20 words
5.
All words should be familiar to students and selected so that they will generate a fairly even mix of correct/incorrect spellings.
6.
Each word is written on a note card
7.
The teacher begins the lesson by administering a test of words for that lesson (no mention that words are related to particular patterns)
8.
Discussion follows with students talking about why they spelled a word they way they did

9.
Then teacher presents correct spelling of the word, complimenting students on the reasonableness of their spellings and highlight the parts of the word that caused difficultly
10.
The students proceed through the list this way and the teacher encourages comparison by asking how words are similar and different
11.
Then the students sort the words into their respective categories. One word (on a card) is chosen to represent each category and for the exception words, a question mark is used.
12.
The teacher randomly selects one of the remaining words and says it, and puts in under the appropriate category (a wall chart with pockets for holding word cards can facilitate process)
13.
As the teacher continues through the words, the students decide where to place them
14.
Then the students add words of their own to the categories w/the teacher providing feedback
15.
In concluding the activity, the teacher solicits from the group an explicit statement concerning the orthographic principles underlying the contrasting patterns
Follow-up activities: looking for words in reading materials that fir the patterns, scanning their own writing for words that fit the patterns, sorting new words that correspond to the target patterns and developing their own pattern study book of words that fit the patterns

Multisensory Study Techniques for Memorizing Spellings of Words
(Scott, 2000)
*Once a multisensory study techniques has been taught, Harris, Graham, and Freeman
(1988) found equal effectiveness for students with LD when practice was independent, teacher-directed on an as-needed basis, or entirely teacher prompted
5-Step study strategy (Graham & Freeman, 1986)
1.
Say the word.
2.
Write and say the word.
3.
Check the word.
4.
Trace and say the word.
5.
Write the word from memory and check spelling.
Horn Method 2 (Horn, 1954)
1.
Pronounce each word carefully.
2.
Look carefully at each part of the word as you pronounce it.
3.
Say the letters in sequence.
4.
Attempt to recall how the word looks, then spell the word.
5.
Check this spelling attempt to recall.
6.
Write the word.
7.
Check this spelling attempt.
8.
Repeat the above steps if necessary.
8-step method for pencil or computer practice
(Berninger, Abbot, Rogan, Reed, Abbott, Brooks, Vaughan, & Graham, 1998a)
1.
Look carefully at the word while tutor sweeps finger over and says it out loud.
2.
Watch and listen while tutor says sound corresponding to color-coded graphemes, in a left to right fashion (for example, /b/ /o/ /t/ while point to “b,” “oa,” and “t.”)
3.
Name letters as tutor points to letters.
4.
Close eyes and picture the word in the “mind’s eye.”
5.
Keep eyes closed and spell the word out loud.
6.
With pencil, open eyes and write word or with computer, open eyes and point to letters on an alphabetical grid; then tutor points to the letter on keyboard and child presses key.
7.
Compare spelling to target.
8.
If incorrect, tutor points out where difference lies, then pervious steps are repeated.

Summary/Other Resources (Gordon, Vaughn, & Schumm, 193)