1
Introduction
Y shud I lern 2 spl f u kan red ths? (Why should I learn to spell if you can read this?)
This is a fair question coming from a young emergent writer. The debate of inventive versus
whole language spelling instruction is an ongoing struggle for educators. The attitude is
traditional – no writing until children can spell. On the other hand, does anything go? With new
light being shed on the spelling process a non-traditional approach to spelling instruction is being
given more thought.
Traditional approaches to spelling when writing allows a student several options when
needing to spell a word. The student can either substitute a word for the one that they cannot
spell; stop and seek help from classmates, the teacher, dictionaries, etc.; or leave a blank space
and fill in the word later (Groff, 2000). Students have difficulty attaching meaning to words they
learn in isolation. Emphasis on correct spelling mechanics causes writers to use a limited
vocabulary, thus stifling creativity.
Whole language encourages students to use their best judgments about spelling. When
writing, students can either spell the word phonetically or can invent spellings for the word
(Groff, 2000). Many teachers have been introduced to whole language and have easily adapted
to literature and process writing. Students might be writing more and more often, but much of
their work is illegible, sloppy, and filled with misspellings of basic words (Routman, 1993).
Teachers are increasingly frustrated, while some parents have been left to wonder if we are
teaching spelling at all (Routman 1993).
There are many uses and abuses of both approaches, and many teachers refuse to
consider alternatives to what they are currently using. Invented spelling was never meant to be
“anything goes”, its purpose was to free kids up to write (Routman, 1993). Children that depend
2
on the teacher or a dictionary to spell every word they write correctly are unable to freely express
themselves. When used correctly, invented spelling allows kids to concentrate on their messages
without over-concern for correctness. At the same time, students need to be held accountable for
basic standards so that they can take pride in their work.
Invented spelling, like learning to walk, is developmental. Children are not expected to
get it right immediately. Promotion of invented spelling recognizes and respects that language
develops gradually and that learners need lots of time and practice to take risk, make mistakes,
and do plenty of reading and writing (Routman, 1993).
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ attitudes of the role of
inventive/conventional spelling on creativity while writing in grades K-3. Invented spelling is an
attempt by students to spell words phonetically (Von Lehmden-Koch, 1993).
Review of Related Literature
Spelling is usually taught as a separate subject and memorization was thought to be the
key to its mastery. With recent discoveries, the acquisition of spelling rules in now viewed as a
complex developmental process. In teaching students to write, teachers should avoid
overemphasis on absolute correctness, mechanics, and memorization. Early emphasis on
mechanical aspects of spelling inhibits developmental growth. For schools to use this new
information, attitudes in teachers and parents will have to change. Student’s invented spellings
need to be seen as opportunities to learn. Combining an understanding of invented spelling and
formal spelling instruction would help teachers develop more effective spelling programs (Lutz,
2000).
3
Students have several options when writing and need to spell a word. They can substitute
another word, stop and ask someone, leave it blank, spell it phonetically, or they can invent.
Whole language classrooms would use either of the latter two. Thus causing arguments to the
whole language approach. Many believe that children should be taught how to spell words
correctly in a direct and systematic way rather than by inventing eccentric spellings of words.
Empirical evidence on children’s spelling development indicates that children learn to spell
correctly faster if taught to do so in a direct and systematic way (Groff, 2000)
Author A. A. Milne was almost 50 years ahead of his time. He probably had never heard
of “invented spelling,” and the writings of Chomsky (1971), Paul (1976), and Hipple (1985)
would be published many years down the road. Nevertheless, Milne provided us with two
excellent illustrations of invented spelling with Christopher Robin’s signs for Owl’s house.
Perhaps Milne realized that young children use their limited writing abilities, especially
when an occasion calls for their talents. Because Christopher Robin was the “only one in the
forest who could spell,” his handiwork was clearly needed by his friends.
Milne may not have known that children who write in this manner are in a developmental
stage of writing (Timberlake, 1995). They have become aware of consonant sounds and of
certain letters that represent these sounds. At this stage, children use the sounds they hear (and
they don’t always hear the sounds accurately) with the letters they know (which may not be all of
the letters) to communicate their thoughts (Hipple 1985). This is a writing strategy called
invented spelling (Chomsky 1971).
This article outlines a theory of developmental spelling that has evolved from qualitative
research on children’s invented spelling. Included is how an analysis of students’ invented
spelling can inform teachers when to teach what. Examples of 3 students’ (ages 6, 8, and 14)
4
invented spellings are provided, and an alternative approach to spelling instruction, called word
study (word sorting, picture sorting, word hunting), is discussed within the context of several
minilessons about examining words by sound, within word patterns, and meanings (Invernizzi,
1994).
Since phonetic awareness is a crucial element in the invented spelling process, a survey
of 15 whole language teachers determined the standpoint of phonemic awareness in the
philosophy of whole language teachers. The 15 teachers, all 5 kindergarten and 10 first-grade
teachers in a school district in western New York, were administered a 16 item Likert-type
survey. Results indicated that: (1) teachers believed that invented spelling is a developmental
process; (2) the teachers failed to provide a supporting environment for emergent spellers; (3)
teachers also failed to support their belief in invented spelling with class activities(Rivaldo,
1994). Findings suggest that whole language teachers need to extend their lessons to touch upon
phonemic awareness.
This study investigates two group-administered tests of phoneme awareness, a phoneme
segmentation test and an invented spelling test. Each test was given to 100 kindergarten children
along with two test of visual-motor ability. The same group of children received standardized
reading tests and portions of an IQ test one year later. Scores on each test of phoneme awareness
and invented spelling predicted between 30% - 40 % of variance in first-grade reading ability
(Mann, 1993). The visual-motor tests bore little relation to future reading ability.
In this article, Regie Routman explains how in the early stages of whole language
movement, as educators and parents were beginning to understand the developmental nature of
all language learning, many believed that kids would learn to spell through immersion in reading
and writing with lots of opportunities for practice and experimentation. As with reading, this
5
approach worked fine for some kids – but not for all. Many students still needed strategies to be
made explicit for them. When teachers didn’t continually model reading and writing processes,
provide lots of opportunities for guided practice, and help kids discover and notice features of
words, some kids had trouble with reading and spelling despite the use of real literature and the
writing process.
As Regie Routman sees it, invented spelling was never meant to be “anything goes.” Its
purpose was to free kids up to write. In a class of 25 or 30 students, children who are dependent
on the teacher to spell every word correctly are unable to freely express themselves. Invented
spelling (and with it, the teacher saying, “Do the best you can. That’s fine for now. Spell it like
it sounds.”) allows kids to concentrate on their messages without over concern for correctness.
Children see themselves as writers early on.
On the other hand, the author believes that we must hold kids accountable for basic
standards so they can take pride in their work. Invented spelling is developmental. Children are
not expected to get it right immediately. However, while it is unrealistic to expect a first grader
to spell all words correctly, it is realistic to expect some words to be spelled correctly all the
time. Children should be inventing only new vocabulary words, uncommon words, and words
we wouldn’t expect them to be able to spell correctly at their age or grade level (Routman,
1993).
Four second-grade boys, 2 considered by their classroom teacher as below average and 2
as above average in basic language skills, participated in a 16-week spelling investigation. The
participants alternately received 5 weeks of an invented spelling approach that incorporated 15
minute creative writing periods and 5 weeks of direct instruction that involved 15-minute periods
of guided practice on spelling word lists. At the end of 10 weeks, each condition was repeated
6
for 3 additional weeks. Although direct instruction resulted in more targeted words spelled
correctly, invented spelling resulted in more non-targeted words spelled correctly, higher
preference ratings by children, and higher teacher ratings of the quality of 3 of the children’s
writing samples (Gettinger, 1993).
This study examined the spelling growth of kindergarten children on a monthly basis to
determine if new information about the spelling growth of children could be found and if there
was a relationship between spelling level and the point at which children begin to put spaces
between words in written sentences. The study found that the children progressed through the
same levels as children in similar studies. It also found that at the beginning of the year only one
child put spaces between the words in the sentence, whereas 13 children put spaces between the
words at the end of the year (Manning, 1993).
This was a quasi-experimental study using kindergarten children measuring the effects of
daily opportunities to draw and write on children’s ability to represent phonemes in spelling
inventions. All students participating in the study were screened using the Gesell School
Readiness Screening Test and placed in developmentally appropriate kindergarten programs.
Children in the experimental groups received daily opportunities to draw and write, while those
in the control group received weekly opportunities to draw and write. Both the treatment and
control groups continued their regular whole language approach program of study. Results
showed that those students who drew and wrote daily represented more phonemes in their
spelling inventions (Partridge, 1991).
This case study posed the problem of the possibility of metacognitive modeling by peers
having and effect on reading and writing development. The conclusion showed that although
more research needed to be done in this area, there appeared to be value in having good writers
7
model their thinking processes for immature writers as they used invented spelling. This created
an experience with letters and sounds that might be exactly what is needed to help a child reach
later development stages. Metacognitive modeling is a realistic expectation that could be
expanded upon with children of various ages and ability levels (Fawcett, 1990).
Too much of what we know about how to teach spelling isn’t being put into practice.
There is no subject that is taught more poorly or that harbors more myths. In spite of volumes of
research, teachers still use the same unsubstantiated teaching formulas. Spelling strategies used
one, two, and even three generations ago are still in use. Ignorance, misunderstanding, and poor
teaching methods cause myths about spelling to be lived out daily in thousands of
classrooms(Gentry, 1987). It is time to separate fact from fiction and to replace mythology with
reality.
Statement of the Hypothesis
It is hypothesized that teachers believe students to be more creative when they use
phonetic (invented/inventive) spelling than when they use conventional (correct) spelling.
8
Method
Participants
A total of forty-nine classroom teachers of grades K-3 in rural school districts in Western
North Carolina were asked to participate in this study. Each teacher was asked to complete a
survey. Forty-two (84%) completed surveys were returned. The mean years, of teaching
experience were eight years, and the mean grade level taught was first grade for the sample of
teachers.
Instrument
A 12 item Likert scale survey was chosen as the most practical method for obtaining the
desired information. The survey was designed to collect information such as grade level taught,
years of teaching experience, ways in which spelling is and should be taught, and the extent to
which phonetic (invented) spelling is used.
Procedure
Surveys were distributed among all K-3 teachers at three different Caldwell County
Schools. Surveys were collected and analyzed to see if this hypothesis stood true. Teachers
were given one week to complete the survey. Attitudes toward inventive/conventional spelling
and writing creativity were measured by assigning numbers to responses on the survey. Results
were grouped according to grade level taught.
9
Results
The study examined a positive or negative attitude of individual teachers on
invented/conventional spelling and writing creativity. This data was then grouped into grade
level taught. Results indicate that all grades were open-minded when children were writing. No
negative attitudes were found to exist concerning the use of invented spelling when students are
writing. A positive attitude was found among the ten, second grade teachers concerning the use
of inventive spelling during writing. In contrast, kindergarten, first, and third grade teachers
showed a neutral attitude toward inventive/conventional spelling and writing creativity.
Comments indicated that if words had been previously taught, they were to be spelled correctly.
However, invented spelling was encouraged for unfamiliar words. Other results show that
kindergarten and first grade classes in our county do not have conventional spelling books. The
county reading series contains a list of spelling words associated with each story, which are used
by some kindergarten and first grade teachers. Table 1 gives a visual picture of our survey
results.
Table 1
Invented Spelling Attitudes
of K-3 Teachers
Scale
5
4
3
2
1
K
1
2
Grade Level
3
10
Discussion
In this study, teachers in grade two displayed more of a willingness to allow students to
use invented spelling than did teachers in kindergarten, first, and third grades. Although the
results of this study do not directly indicated why kindergarten, first, and third grades teachers
have a difference of attitude toward inventive spelling, several possible explanations can be
offered. To begin with, kindergarten and first grades (in the Caldwell County School system) do
not have conventional spelling books. Also, it is perceived that third grade students should only
be inventing new vocabulary words, uncommon words, and words that they would not be
expected to spell correctly at their age or grade level (Routman, 1993). In addition, children in
third grade should have an understanding of useful rules and generalizations of the English
language and an ability to proofread their written work (Wilde, 1990). Although these comments
do not reflect the beliefs of all teachers, they do correlate with the majority of teachers’ response
that students should be able to spell most words correctly by third grade.
The results of this study do not support the original hypothesis: Teachers’ attitudes are
that students are more creative when they use phonetic (invented/inventive) spelling than they
are when required to focus on correct spelling. In contrast, results do indicate that while teachers
encourage conventional spelling they also support the use of inventive spelling when facing an
unknown or unfamiliar word.
11
Reference
Chomsky, C. (1979). Approaching reading through invented spelling. Theory and Practice of
Early Reading, 43-45.
Fawcett, G. (1990). Metacognitive modeling and inventive spelling: a case study. Ohio
Reading Teacher, 24 (2), 10-18.
Gettinger, M. (1993). Effects of invented spelling and direct instruction on spelling
performance of second grade boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26 (23),
281-291.
Groff, P. ( 2000). A critique of inventive spelling. [On-line]. Available: www.nrrf.com.
Invernizzi, N. (1994). Using students’ invented spellings as a guide for spelling instruction that
emphasizes word study. The Elementary School Journal, 95(2) 155-167.
Lutz, E. (2000). Invented spelling and spelling development. [On-line]. Available:
www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed2/2922.html.
Mann, V. (1993). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 26(4) 259-269.
Partridge, E. (1991). The effects of daily opportunities to draw and write on kindergarten
children’s ability to represent phonemes in their spelling inventions. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 341 482)
Phinney, M. (2000). Invented spelling. [On-line]. Available: www.naturalchild.com.
Rivaldo, R. (1994). Invented spelling: What is the problem? The misconceptions of whole
language teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384 866)
Routman, R. (1993). The uses and abuses of inventive spelling. Instructor, 102(9) 36-39.
12
Timberlake, P. (1995). Christopher Robin, Owl, Eeyore, and nvntd splling. Young Children, 50
(3) 66-67.
Wilde, S. (1990). A proposal for new spelling curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 90,
275-289.
Von Lehmden-Koch, C. (1993). Attitudes of K-6 teachers towards invented spelling. . (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357 335)