The development of a spelling assessment tool informed by Triple Word Form Theory.

Daffern, Tessa ; Mackenzie, Noella Maree ; Hemmings, Brian 等

Introduction

Spelling is one of the essential mechanics of the written English language. It is the visible representation of 'word-level language using written symbols in conventional sequences (orthography) that represent speech sounds (phonology) and word parts that signal meaning and grammar (morphology)' (Garcia, Abbott & Berninger, 2010, p. 63). Much of the English spelling system is also etymologically complex as it derives from culturally and historically diverse linguistic origins (Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004; Venezky, 2004).

Scholarly research in spelling has not yet reached consensus regarding the trajectory of spelling knowledge in school-aged children. This ambiguity has perpetuated a need to develop assessment systems that reflect evolving perspectives of spelling development. Effective spelling assessment systems should provide informative, reliable and valid data and be culturally contextualised; however, spelling assessment tools currently used in many classrooms do not necessarily provide teachers with comprehensive, valid and reliable data. This article reports on a study that developed and tested an innovative, valid and reliable spelling assessment tool that could be used by middle and upper primary school teachers, as well as educational researchers. This tool, referred to as the Components of Spelling Test (CoST), was designed to address a gap in pedagogy and in educational research methodology. Of particular significance, the CoST is the first spelling assessment tool of its kind to be developed and tested within an Australian context.

A focus on spelling

It is well established that spelling is an important dimension of writing and a fundamental part of being literate (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy & Carlisle, 2010; Devonshire & Fluck, 2010). If students have inadequate spelling skills, they may need to devote conscious attention to the task of spelling rather than on other dimensions required for composing quality texts (Hutcheon, Campbell & Stewart, 2012; Puranik & Al Otaiba, 2012). Research also suggests that as primary school students progress through schooling, they may become less willing to take risks with vocabulary choice when writing, particularly if they are unsure of a word's spelling (Lowe & Bormann, 2012). In addition, proficiency in spelling is known to support metalinguistic skills, such as phonological awareness (Ehri, 1985) and morphological awareness (Nagy, Berninger & Abbott, 2006). These skills, in turn, positively influence writing competence (Martello, 2001), confidence and general enjoyment and fluency in reading (Perfetti, 1997; Treiman, 1998). Indeed, Templeton and Morris (1999, p. 103) describe spelling knowledge as the 'engine that drives efficient reading and writing'.

The twenty-first century is characterised by rapid developments in technology and an increasing reliance on the use of devices and software designed to facilitate communication (Zedda-Sampson, 2013). As writers navigate multi-modes of text in an age where instant communication intensifies, spelling competence becomes increasingly essential. Social networking and digital text messaging has generated an additional language known as 'texting' (Bushnell, Kemp & Martin, 2011; Zedda-Sampson, 2013), and this places demands on writers to consciously control and manipulate their spelling in order to communicate in a range of contexts. Applying and adapting spelling systems to different social and cultural contexts requires autonomous and critical spelling.

Learning to spell

Research has offered various perspectives on the nature of spelling development; however, evidence has not been substantive enough to provide consensus on whether spelling develops in progressive and distinct stages, or whether spelling develops in more complex ways. The analysis of spelling errors students make have enabled stage theorists (Bear & Templeton, 1998; Cataldo & Ellis, 1988; Ehri, 1985; Frith, 1980; Gentry, 2012; Read, 2009) to produce a linguistic index (a list of linguistic features, such as initial consonants and digraphs) that has subsequently led to the categorisation of spelling development into distinct and sequential stages. For example, according to Gentry (2000, p. 324), students progress through five distinct stages of spelling, namely, 'precommunicative', 'semiphonetic, 'phonetic', 'transitional' and 'correct' (or 'conventional'). On the other hand, Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton and Johnston (2012, p. 9) label the five stages as 'emergent', 'letter-name', 'within word', 'syllables and affixes' and 'derivational'. Proponents of stage theories conceptualise spelling development using different terminology; but, these theories are broadly characterised by similar qualitatively descriptive categories or stages. Developmental spelling stages derive from 'Piagetian theory and the notion that aspects of cognitive development proceed by way of qualitative stage-like change' (Gentry, 2000, p. 319). According to stage theories, 'spelling difficulties are viewed as an inability to move on to the next stage' (Kohnen, Nickels & Castles, 2009, p. 116). Diagnostic assessments that are informed by stage-theories, such as the Words their Way Spelling Inventories (Bear et al., 2012) and Ganske's (2000) assessment model, are used to analyse students' spelling errors and classify them according to a particular stage of development. Although stage-oriented assessment tools take into account phonological, orthographic and morphological aspects within words, accuracy in phonological, orthographic and morphological encoding is assumed to progress sequentially. Within a stage-like assessment framework, instruction for the student then focuses on assisting the student to progress to the next stage.

However, Ehri (2005) describes learning to read and spell sight words according to sequential 'phases', rather than 'stages', with the intention to avoid the stringent assumption associated with developmental stages. According to Ehri, while learning to read and spell may occur over four 'successive' phases (2005, p. 176), namely 'prealphabetic', 'partial alphabetic', 'full alphabetic', and finally, 'consolidated alphabetic' (Ehri, 2005, 2013), she acknowledges that progression through the phases may indeed overlap somewhat. Discrepancies in views regarding how children learn to spell highlight the need for further research.

Although stage theories offer a sequential framework that may be useful for teachers planning and implementing teaching and learning experiences, the need to reconsider spelling assessment is critical as evidence of non-linear models of spelling development is mounting. Indeed, converging evidence in support of non-linear models of spelling development (see, for example, Garcia et al., 2010; Perfetti & Hart, 2002) has emerged in the last decade or so, suggesting that the development of spelling may be far more complex than stage theorists assumed in the 1970s and 80s. The view that young students are capable of drawing on and coordinating phonological, orthographic and morphological skills from the beginning of spelling development, and that these students gain increasing explicit control over these skills (Devonshire & Fluck, 2010; Garcia et al., 2010; Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999) is very different from the view held by stage theorists, who assume that spelling progresses sequentially from phonology to orthography to morphology (Bear et al., 2012; Gentry, 2012).

Accurate phonological representations reflect knowledge of how to segment spoken words into the smallest units of sound within a word, as well as knowledge of sound to letter correspondences in words (Bear et al., 2012; Ganske, 2000). Processing and reproducing orthographic features within words requires sensitivity to letter sequences, or clusters of letters within a word, rather than visual features (or shapes) of individual letters (Bahr, Silliman, Berninger & Dow, 2012). For example, when students have developed high orthographic sensitivity, they have come to remember /ough/ as a whole unit (as in the word, brought) and can automatically encode the unit, as opposed to laboriously encoding each individual grapheme as /o-u-g-h/. These students are also highly aware that the letter ordering, or sequencing, within the cluster /ough/ is plausible, and that /uohg/, for example, is not. Developing this latter kind of orthographic sensitivity is referred to by Treiman and Kessler (2006, p. 642) as 'statistical learning'. Morphological knowledge reflects an individual's capacity to reflect, analyse and manipulate the morphemic elements in words (Carlisle, McBride-Chang, Nagy & Nunes, 2010).

Theorists who advocate a non-linear perspective of spelling development argue that phonology, orthography and morphology develop and interact in parallel throughout the primary school years. Triple Word Form Theory (TWFT) represents a non-linear stance and has been validated in a series of brain imaging studies (Berninger et al., 2010; Richards, Aylward, Berninger, et al., 2006) and behavioural studies (Berninger, Raskind, Richards, Abbott & Stock, 2008; Garcia et al., 2010; Nagy et al., 2006). Originating from studies conducted on samples of individuals diagnosed with dyslexia and employing instructional methods and brain imaging (Garcia et al., 2010; Richards, Aylward, Field, et al., 2006; Richards, Berninger, Winn, et al., 2009), TWFT resonates closely with Perfetti and Hart's (2002) Lexical Quality Hypothesis (LQH). While Perfetti and Hart (2002) propose that spelling development is dependent on the integration and interaction of three closely connected constituents: orthography, phonology, and semantics (Perfetti & Hart, 2002), their LQH is less grounded by research than TWFT. For instance, several studies in support of TWFT have involved comparisons of individuals with and without dyslexia diagnoses, providing converging evidence that unique and common brain regions are activated when individuals are engaged in tasks, distinguished as either phonological, orthographic or morphological in nature (Berninger & Abbott, 2010; Berninger et al., 2010; Garcia et al., 2010; Richards, Aylward, Berninger, et al., 2006; Richards, Aylward, Field, et al., 2006). TWFT assumes that phonological, orthographic, and morphological word forms are involved in learning to spell from the early years of learning to write, and that changes occur in the ways in which these linguistic forms interact (Richards, Berninger & Fayol, 2009). Moreover, according to TWFT, increasing efficiency and autonomy in the coordination of the three linguistic word forms occurs over time, largely, as a result of instructional priorities and approaches (Berninger et al., 2010).

Assessment of spelling

Further research is still needed to describe and explain the complex nature of spelling development; however, it seems sensible and logical to develop assessment systems that consider both non-linear and stage-like views of spelling development. Popular standardised assessment tools, such as the South Australian Spelling Test (Westwood, 2005), offer a range of words which implicitly encompass phonological, orthographic and morphological word forms and increase in difficulty; however, they do not provide teachers with the kind of diagnostic information needed to support students' improvement in spelling. An assessment system, developed in the US through qualitative analysis of students' written compositions, known as the Phonological, Orthographic, and Morphological Assessment of Spelling (POMAS) (Bahr et al., 2012), conceptualises spelling into the three word forms. However, the POMAS has its limitations. Unlike the CoST, the POMAS does not provide teachers with a statistically reliable, readily available, efficient and user-friendly way to measure students' phonological, orthographic and morphological spelling, based on words spelled to dictation. The underlying purpose of the present study was to address this issue. Indeed, it has been argued that existing measures of spelling achievement are 'not sufficiently structured or standardised to provide the reliable, sensitive data that teachers need to plan instruction' (Al Otaiba & Hosp, 2010, p. 4). Moreover, systematic and standardised spelling error analysis has the potential to yield much richer data than simply examining student responses in terms of words being correct or incorrect (Al Otaiba & Hosp, 2010; Bear et al., 2012; Sharp, Sinatra & Reynolds, 2008).

The spelling of single words presented orally in the context of a sentence, in contrast to the spelling of words in written composition, provides a reliable medium from which to measure spelling achievement (Kohnen et al., 2009). Indeed, when students compose whole written texts, such as narratives, they need to manage the spelling task with several other important cognitive processes, including planning, creating cohesive syntactic structures, selecting vocabulary, reviewing and monitoring (Mackenzie, Scull & Munsie, 2013). With this assumption in mind, a dictation spelling test provides an appropriate medium to measure specific knowledge of the components of spelling, as it reduces other potential interferences which may subsequently disguise a student's knowledge capacity of the spelling system.

It has been argued that dictation spelling tests alone do not assure comprehensive profiles of students' knowledge of the spelling system (Hammond, 2004; Westwood, 2005). Analyses of students' linguistic errors present in prescribed words may yield an effective and integral source of feedback to teachers or educational researchers; however, if accompanied by other methods of assessment, feedback is undoubtedly enhanced. Additional methods of spelling assessment should not be disregarded, and these may include reflective conversations or self-reports by students (Critten, Pine & Messer, 2013; Devonshire & Fluck, 2010), and analyses of linguistic errors present in students' contextualised written compositions (Bahr et al., 2012; Devonshire & Fluck, 2010).

The study

The study described in this paper derives from research which took place during the initial phases of a larger project examining the spelling competence of 1 200 students aged between eight and 12 years. The main purpose of the study was to develop and test the reliability and validity of the CoST.

Method

The development and testing of this assessment tool is best described in two main stages. The first stage involved designing a tool that was informed by current literature on spelling development and assessment. Words were selected by reviewing commonly used assessment tools, such as the South Australian Spelling Test (Westwood, 2005) and the inventories from Words Their Way Spelling (Bear et al., 2012). Consideration was also given to common spelling errors made by students in the National Assessment Program of Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) Language Conventions Test (Willett & Gardiner, 2009), as well as lists of frequently used words and 'demon words' (Roberts, 2001, p. 52). The intention was to compile a preliminary list of words characterised by diverse lexical complexity. This compilation exercise resulted in about 90 words being identified as having potential utility.

The chief researcher then determined and defined appropriate linguistic features present in each word by considering the linguistic index associated with stage theory. In particular, the commercially available spelling inventories developed by stage theorists (see, for example, Bear et al., 2012) were used as reliable and valid exemplars from which to score and analyse spelling errors (Sterbinsky, 2007). Specific linguistic features within each word were then aligned to the three overarching components that underpin TWFT (that is, phonological, orthographic and morphological). The tentative list of words and their corresponding dictation sentences were further refined in terms of their linguistic features, and condensed as part of an expert review process before proceeding to the second research stage.

The second and final stage of the study involved (i) testing the draft version of the CoST in several school contexts, and (ii) an empirical analysis and refinement of the CoST. The following sections of this paper consider this stage of the study.

Sample

The second stage of the study focussed on students in Year 3 and Year 5 from four schools in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Australia. Representation from all three school sectors (that is, public, catholic and independent schools) was included to ensure the sample was broadly representative of ACT primary schools (Johanson & Brooks, 2010). Approval to conduct the study was granted by the university's Human Research Ethics Committee, the ACT Catholic Education Office and the ACT Education and Training Directorate. Informed written consent was also obtained from the participating school principals, teachers, students and their parents prior to conducting the school-based research. Using convenience sampling, 163 students from Year 3 and 176 students from Year 5 were invited to take part in the study. Of these, 94 students from Year 3 and 97 students from Year 5 classes agreed to take part in the study.

Test administration

The chief researcher administered the CoST to participating students during regular class times and at their respective school sites during Third Term, 2013. For each word in the CoST, students were required to listen to the word first, which was then repeated in the context of a sentence, and then restated one more time. Students' spelling responses were collected and then individually marked by the chief researcher. It needs to be kept in mind that some of the words had more than one linguistic feature (item) to be assessed.

Reliability and validity analyses

To test the reliability of each of the three subscales or components (namely, Phonological Component, Orthographic Component, and Morphological Component) the raw scores were standardised and then analysed using estimates of item difficulty and internal consistency. Data from the Year 3 and Year 5 cohorts were analysed separately.

The item difficulty index was calculated on each subscale by identifying the percentage of Year 3 students who accurately spelled each feature (item) of a word. The same procedure was then repeated with the Year 5 data. Higher percentages (approximately 80-90%) in the item difficulty index identified items that were easier, whereas lower percentages (approximately 20% or lower) identified items that were more difficult. Overall, the scores were lower for Year 3 than they were for Year 5, as presented in Table 1.

The distribution of scores, for each subscale, was then checked by using the Descriptives command on SPSS, Version 20 (Buckingham & Saunders, 2004). An inspection of the spread of scores helped to determine if all items in the subscales were adequate measures. If the results for an item are too similar, it is difficult to know whether the item is adequate or whether the subscale actually lacks variability (Macmillan & Schumacher, 2006).

Four other items, and their related words, in the phonological measure were considered for deletion due to some evidence of ceiling effects. These included short vowels and final consonants in one-syllable words such as tag, stick and gum. Although typically developing students acquire knowledge of beginning and final consonant letters and short vowel sounds from the early stages of learning to read and write (Paris, 2005), a decision to keep these items was made to offer participating students an opportunity to begin the spelling test with a couple of one-syllable words containing common sound-letter correspondences. Such an approach was adopted to help boost the confidence of the respondents and make them feel more at ease in a test situation.

The maximum score in the revised version of the phonological measure was 29, recorded in Year 3, and 31 in Year 5. The respective means were 20.9 and 23.0, as indicated in Table 1. There was also some evidence of ceiling effects in the orthographic measure. A marked improvement was evident from Year 3 to Year 5 in the morphological subscale, and respective scores ranged from 2 to 28 and 1 to 39 indicating the greater difficulty of this area.

A test of scale reliability was also undertaken. This test examines internal consistency by determining whether the items included to measure each construct in all three subscales had good overall inter-correlation. To test internal consistency requires a calculation using Cronbach's alpha to ascertain how homogenous the items of each subscale are (Colman & Pulford, 2008). Cronbach's alpha is an appropriate statistic as the items in the CoST are dichotomous (e.g. score for each item is either correct or incorrect). According to Muijs (2004), obtaining a strong case for reliability requires an alpha of over 0.75. Cronbach's alpha on each subscale was calculated separately by school year, using the Reliability Analysis command in SPSS, Version 20.

There was a total of 111 items in the original version of the CoST; however, some items yielded either negative or low correlations or had an inadequate spread of scores. Consequently, ten items, and their related words, were deleted from the instrument. For example, one item classified in the phonological measure as a consonant digraph was deemed problematic (/sh/ in the word wish) as it did not yield a statistically reliable result in Year 3. As a consequence, the word 'wish' was removed from the revised list. In the orthographic measure, three items were deleted to strengthen the overall reliability. These included a common long vowel (/o/ in rope), a diphthong (/ow/ in shower), and an unaccented final syllable (/er/ in shower). In the morphological measure, six items were also deleted as they improved the overall alpha. Items included a derivational suffix (/able/ in innumerable), a homophone (torque), an assimilated prefix (/nn/ in innumerable), and three root words (/arch/ in monarchy; /psych/ in psychology; and /equi/ in equilibrium).

With a revised total of 101 items, the internal consistency results of the finalised CoST were strong, as indicated in Table 2.

Content validity was also addressed by designing an instrument based on current literature regarding the development of spelling and on the nature of the Australian English spelling system. The structure of the spelling test instrument closely aligns with the components of spelling that define TWFT. It also utilises an error-analysis technique that is characteristic of the spelling inventories provided by stage theorists (see, for example, Bear et al., 2012). Consulting colleagues during an expert review process further enhanced the validity of the CoST (Muijs, 2004).

The revised structure of the CoST

The CoST was designed to efficiently assess a whole class of students at one time. It is a dictation spelling test consisting of 70 words; however, what sets this test apart from other commonly used dictation spelling tests designed specifically within an Australian context, such as the South Australian Spelling Test (Westwood, 2005), is in the way it is scored and analysed. Each word is analysed in terms of specific linguistic errors that may be made by the student and is informed by TWFT. In the CoST, each linguistic error is scored and categorised into one of three subscales: Phonological Component; Orthographic Component; and Morphological Component.

Across the three components (subscales), there are a total of 15 linguistic constructs (spelling features) and 101 individual items, across 70 words. Table 3 presents a summary of the final version of the CoST's structure.

The Phonological Component

The Phonological Component in the CoST is designed to measure knowledge of the phono-graphic (speech sound to alphabetic letter) representation of initial and final consonants, regular short medial vowels, common digraphs, and medial blends within polysyllabic words (Richards, Aylward, Berninger, et al., 2006). The CoST is the first assessment tool that considers phonological knowledge within the context of complex polysyllabic words. Table 4 presents a summary of the four constructs that comprise the Phonological Component, each of which measures the spelling accuracy of specific phonological features within words.

The Orthographic Component

The Orthographic Component in the CoST is designed to measure knowledge of correct (ortho) letter sequences within written (graphy) words. The English orthographic system relies on 26 letters of the alphabet to represent 44 phonemes, or speech sounds (Bear et al., 2012). Therefore, a single phoneme is sometimes spelled with different letter sequences or combinations. The Orthographic Component in the CoST considers the visual representation of conventional letter sequences as a measure of orthographic knowledge. In the CoST, the Orthographic Component consists of five constructs (see Table 5), each of which measures the spelling accuracy in specific orthographic features within words.

The Morphological Component

The Morphological Component in the CoST is designed to measure knowledge of morphemic elements within words. A morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning and includes prefixes, suffixes and roots (Ganske, 2000). A prefix is a unit of meaning that attaches to the beginning of a base word or word root, while a suffix is a unit of meaning that attaches to the end of a base word or root. Roots are examples of morphemes that are etymologically significant, and most commonly originate from the Latin and Greek languages (Bear et al., 2012; Ganske, 2000). There are two types of morphemes in the English language, distinguished as either bound or free (Ganske, 2000): A bound morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning that cannot be used as an isolated word. Bound morphemes commonly include prefixes and suffixes such as pre-, un-, re-, -ful, and -es. A free morpheme is commonly referred to as a base word and is the smallest unit of meaning that can stand alone, such as shout and march.

As morphemes are combined in various ways to express specific meanings or to function in certain grammatical roles (Carlisle et al., 2010), spelling is often determined by particular morphemic elements in words. Some words might contain one free morpheme and one bound morpheme (shout-ed and knotted), while many compound words contain two free morphemes (sun-shine). Other words may contain several morpheme combinations (in-cred-ible).

Six constructs are included in the Morphological Component to measure the spelling accuracy of specific morphemic elements within words, as summarised in Table 6.

Discussion

Reconciling the dichotomy of stage theories and nonlinear models of spelling development is possible to some degree. By drawing on the assumptions that underlie TWFT while simultaneously adopting the methods of spelling error analysis developed by stage theorists, the CoST appears to provide a reliable and valid tool to measure individual differences in specific phonological, orthographic and morphological skills associated with the Australian-English spelling system.

The CoST's innovation is in its capacity to interrogate student knowledge of the spelling system without confining an individual's spelling achievement into one particular stage of development. The CoST's linguistic features account for the likelihood that students in the middle and upper primary school years may be encouraged to experiment with complex polysyllabic words and homophones when they engage in the craft of writing, and that phonological, orthographic and morphological processing may be subsequently affected. Some students may demonstrate accurate phonological processing when spelling one or two syllable words; however, further research is needed to determine whether a break-down of phonological processing occurs when the same students attempt to write more complex, polysyllabic words. Spelling assessment systems need to include valid and reliable measures of phonological, orthographic and morphological processing, beyond the spelling of monosyllabic words, yet it is intriguing that the use of polysyllabic words has been overlooked in existing, commonly used spelling assessment tools, particularly with respect to phonological processing. Additionally, the inclusion of homophones as a construct in current spelling assessment tools has been largely neglected, yet this linguistic feature seems to present ongoing challenges to school-aged students (Kohnen et al., 2009). Given the substantial number of homophones in the English language, its relative absence as a measurable construct of morphological significance is surprising.

The systematic analysis of linguistic errors, produced within individual words, yields rich data; however, the ways in which linguistic features are conceptualised may challenge existing assumptions about the nature of spelling development. The CoST categorises spelling errors as phonological, orthographic and morphological, rather than as developmental stages, and this is starkly different to a stage-like approach to spelling error analysis. Stage theorists assume that spelling develops in a linear manner, yet emerging research contests this view. A fundamental implication of the CoST is that current perspectives of spelling development can now be further contested. Curriculum developers and educators may need to consider that an individuals' understanding and application of the English spelling system may not necessarily follow a sequential or linear path. Primary school students experiment with increasingly complex vocabulary as they learn to write and read. As they do, their phonological, orthographic and morphological processing is likely to intensify in efficiency and autonomy.

The CoST presents a new methodological foundation for further investigation into students' spelling achievement; however, this tool is not intended to be used in isolation or as a replacement for other assessment tools, both in the classroom and in the scholarly research context. Supplementing the CoST with additional measures is critical to capturing the complex nature of spelling development. For example, an assessment may also include tasks that require students to proofread and edit spelling errors that are presented in a given text. In addition, it will always be important to include analysis of students' spelling within the context of written compositions, as it is in this situation that we see the application of their developing spelling competence. It also needs to be noted that, as with many dichotomous measures, caution is needed in administrating the CoST to the same student/s, as it is possible that familiarity with the dictated words may subsequently invalidate post-test results.

Conclusion

The CoST has the potential to offer rich insights into the spelling skills of middle and upper primary school-aged students. Although the findings of this study cannot be generalised to the broader primary school student population, the CoST can be used for future examination of spelling in other contexts. Indeed, this tool has since become pivotal in a large-scale project involving 1 200 students, providing evidence of criterion-related validity, among other findings, yet to be published. Replicating the present study using a set of parallel items, with other student populations, and with the inclusion of an item discrimination analysis, will further validate and enhance the utility of the CoST. There is also scope to apply the subscales and constructs of the CoST as a framework for analysing spelling errors present in students' written compositions. The cultural significance of this assessment tool lies in its relevance to a twenty-first century Australian education context. The CoST offers a means from which to begin uncovering the complexities of students' knowledge of the English spelling system in ways that may not have previously been anticipated.

References

Al Otaiba, S. & Hosp, J. (2010). Spell it out: The need for detailed spelling assessment to inform instruction. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 3-6.

Bahr, R., Silliman, E., Berninger, V. & Dow, M. (2012). Linguistic pattern analysis of misspellings of typically developing writers in grades 1-9. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1587-1599.

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bear, D.R. & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 52(3), 222-242.

Berninger, V. & Abbott, R. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 635-651.

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Nagy, W. & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141-163. doi: 10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6

Berninger, V., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R. & Stock, P. (2008). A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(6), 707-744. doi: 10.1080/87565640802418662

Buckingham, A. & Saunders, P. (2004). The survey methods workbook. From design to analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bushnell, C., Kemp, N. & Martin, F.H. (2011). Text-messaging practices and links to general spelling skill: A study of Australian children. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 11, 27-38.

Carlisle, J.F., McBride-Chang, C., Nagy, W. & Nunes, T. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. International Reading Association, 45(4), 464-487.

Cataldo, S. & Ellis, N. (1988). Interactions in the development of spelling, reading and phonological skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 11(2), 86-109.

Colman, A. & Pulford, B. (2008). A crash course in SPSS for Windows (4th ed.). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Critten, S., Pine, K. & Messer, D. (2013). Revealing children's implicit spelling representations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 198-211. doi: 10.1111/ bjdp.12000

Daffern, T. & Mackenzie, N. (2015). Building strong writers: Creating a balance between the authorial and secretarial elements of writing. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 23(1), 23-32.

Devonshire, V. & Fluck, M. (2010). Spelling development: Fine-tuning strategy-use and capitalising on the connections between words. Learning and Instruction, 20, 361-371.

Ehri, L.C. (1985). Learning to read and spell. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167-188. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4

Ehri, L.C. (2013). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

Frith, U. (1980). Cognitive process in spelling. London: Academic Press.

Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys: Assessment-guided phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Garcia, N., Abbott, R. & Berninger, V. (2010). Predicting poor, average, and superior spellers in grades 1 to 6 from phonological, orthographic, and morphological, spelling, or reading composites. Written Language & Literacy, 13(1), 61-98.

Gentry, J.R. (2000). A retrospective on invented spelling and a look forward. The Reading Teacher, 54(3), 318-332.

Gentry, J.R. (2012). An analysis of developmental spelling in GNYS AT WRK. In D. Wyse (Ed.), Literacy Teaching and Education (Vol. 3, pp. 347-357). London: SAGE Publications.

Hammond, L. (2004). Getting the right balance: Effective classroom spelling instruction. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9(3), 11-18. doi:10.1080/19404150409546769

Hutcheon, G., Campbell, M. & Stewart, J. (2012). Spelling instruction through etymology: A method of developing spelling lists for older students. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 12, 60-70.

Invernizzi, M. & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental spelling research: A systematic imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 216-228.

Johanson & Brooks, G. (2010). Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394-400. doi:10.1177/0013164409355692

Kohnen, S., Nickels, L. & Castles, A. (2009). Assessing spelling skills and strategies: A critique of available resources. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14(1), 113-150.

Lowe, K. & Bormann, F. (2012). U-Can Write: Working with Struggling Writers. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 20(2), 22-28.

Mackenzie, N.M., Scull, J. & Munsie, L. (2013). Analysing writing: The development of a tool for use in the early years of schooling. Issues In Educational Research, 23(3), 375-393.

Macmillan, J. & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Sydney: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Martello, J. (2001). Talk about writing: Metalinguistic awareness in beginning writers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(2), 101.

Muijs, D. (2004). Validity, reliability and generalisability. Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (pp. 64-76). London: Sage Publications.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V. & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134-147.

Paris, S.G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184-202.

Perfetti, C. (1997). The psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to Spell: Research, Theory, and Practice Across Languages (pp. 21-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perfetti, C. & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of Functional Literacy (pp. 189-213). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Puranik, C.S. & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1523-1546.

Read, C. (2009). Learning to use alphabetic writing. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 260-270). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Richards, T., Aylward, E., Berninger, V., Field, K., Grimme, A., Richards, A. & Nagy, W. (2006). Individual fMRI activation in orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or morphological spelling treatment in child dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19(1), 56-86.

Richards, T., Aylward, E., Field, K., Grimme, A., Raskind, W., Richards, A. & Berninger, V. (2006). Converging evidence for triple word form theory in children with dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30(1), 547-589. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn3001_3

Richards, T., Berninger, V. & Fayol, M. (2009). fMRI activation differences between 11-year-old good and poor spellers' access in working memory to temporary and longterm orthographic representations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(4), 327-353.

Richards, T., Berninger, V., Winn, W., Swanson, H.L., Stock, P., Liang, O. & Abbott, R. (2009). Differences in fMRI activation between children with and without spelling disability on 2-back/0-back working memory contrast. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 93-123.

Rittle-Johnson, B. & Siegler, R.S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and change in children's strategy use. Child Development, 70(2), 332-348.

Roberts, J. (2001). Spelling recovery. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.

Sharp, A.C., Sinatra, G.M. & Reynolds, R.E. (2008). The development of children's orthographic knowledge: A microgenetic perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 206-226.

Sterbinsky, A. (2007). Words Their Way spelling inventories: Reliability and validity analyses. Memphis, Tennessee: Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 102-112.

Treiman, R. (1998). Why spelling? The benefits of incorporating spelling into beginning reading instruction. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 289-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Treiman, R. & Kessler, B. (2006). Spelling as statistical learning: Using consonantal context to spell vowels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 642-652.

Venezky, R.L. (2004). In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language & Literacy, 7(2), 139-163.

Westwood, P. (2005). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.

Willett, L. & Gardiner, A. (2009). Testing spelling: Exploring NAPLAN. Paper presented at the Australian Literacy Educators Association Conference.

Zedda-Sampson, L. (2013). Is U a word or do you spell it with a Z? English spelling in Australian schools--Are we getting it write? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 21(2), 41-51.

Tessa Daffern, Noella Maree Mackenzie, Brian Hemmings

Charles Sturt University

Tessa Daffern is a PhD candidate and Subject Coordinator in the Masters of Education at Charles Sturt University. She is an accredited provider of professional learning with the Teacher Quality Institute, in the Australian Capital Territory, and regularly works with teachers in schools as a literacy consultant and presenter. Email: tdaffern@csu.edu.au

Noella Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in literacy studies in the School of Education at Charles Sturt University, Albury. She is a member of the Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE). Noella's current research focuses on writing, informed by, her ongoing professional work with teachers in schools. Email: nmackenzie@csu.edu.au

Brian Hemmings is currently the Sub-Dean (Graduate Studies) and Deputy Director, Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE) at Charles Sturt University. He has published widely and his most recent publications appear in Professional Development in Education and the Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Email: bhemmings@csu.edu.au

Table 1. Descriptive measures for CoST scores

           Phonological   Orthographic   Morphological
            Component      Component       Component
            (31 Items)     (29 Items)     (41 Items)

Year 3
(n=94)
Minimum              8              2               2
Maximum             29             29              28
Mean             20.91          18.12           12.96
SD                3.94           7.17            6.63

Year 5
(n=97)
Minimum              9              3               1
Maximum             31             29              39
Mean             23.01          23.36           20.39
SD                4.39           6.07            9.12

Table 2. Internal consistency of the CoST

                Phonological   Orthographic   Morphological
                 Component      Component       Component

Year 3 (n=94)       .78            .93             .89

Year 5 (n=97)       .84            .93             .94

Table 3. Summary of the Components of Spelling Test (CoST)

Subscale       Phonological
                Component

                Constructs       No. of
                                 Items

            Initial & Final        5
            Consonant

            Short Vowel            5

            Consonant Digraphs     5

            Polysyllabic-word      16
            Medial Blends

Subscale                           31
Items (n)

Subscale       Orthographic
                Component

                Constructs       No. of
                                 Items

            Common Long Vowels     7

            Ambiguous Vowels       7

            Complex Consonant      5
            Patterns

            Syllable Juncture      5
            Consonants

            Unaccented Final       5
            Syllables

Subscale                           29
Items (n)

Subscale      Morphological
                Component

                Constructs       No. of
                                 Items

            Inflected              7
            Suffixes

            Derivational           8
            Suffixes

            Morpheme Juncture      5
            Schwa Vowels

            Homophone              7

            Greek and              7
            Latin Roots

            Assimilated            7
            Prefixes

Subscale                           41
Items (n)

Table 4. Phonological Component constructs

Construct         Description

Initial and       An initial consonant is a single non-vowel letter
final consonant   that is positioned at the beginning of a word to
                  directly represent the first phoneme (rob).
                  A final consonant is a single non-vowel letter
                  that is positioned at the end of a word to
                  directly represent the last phoneme (rob).

Short vowel       A single vowel letter (a/e/i/o/u) that is
                  positioned in the middle of a word to directly
                  represent a lax phoneme, which is produced when
                  the vocal chords are more relaxed (rob)
                  (Bear et al., 2012).

Consonant         Consonant digraphs are two letters that represent
digraph           one phoneme (Bear et al., 2012; Ganske, 2000).
                  Common consonant digraphs are included in this
                  measure and are positioned in the initial part of
                  words (chew/thorn/why) and the final part of
                  words (smooth/coach).

Polysyllabic      Medial blends include two or more letters in the
word medial       middle of a polysyllabic word that are highly
blend             regular and phonetically represented. Each letter
                  represents a single regular sound. Examples of
                  these medial blends include: /agnosti/
                  (diagnostician); / ubstan/ (substantial); /libri/
                  (equilibrium).

Note. Also see Daffern & Mackenzie (2015)

Table 5. Orthographic Component constructs

Construct      Description

Common Long    Common letter patterns that represent long vowel
Vowel          sounds (stripe, moat).

Ambiguous      Ambiguous vowel patterns include diphthongs,
Vowel          in which the sound produced by one vowel glides into
               another (shouted and boil), and r influenced vowels
               (marched).

Complex        Consonant letter sequences occurring in any part of
Consonant      a word. Letter clusters include several letters to
Cluster        represent several phonemes (stripe) as well as less
               common digraphs and trigraphs, which are letter
               combinations that represent one phoneme
               (smudged, scratches and knotted).

Syllable       Consonants are sometimes doubled at the juncture
Juncture       between two syllables in a word (bottle).
Consonants

Unaccented     Letter sequences found in words where the last
Final          syllable is not stressed (bottle and tunnel).
Syllables

Note. Also see Daffern & Mackenzie (2015)

Table 6. Morphological Component constructs

Construct                 Description

Inflected Suffix          Suffixes that change the verb tense
                          (march-ed) or number (dog-s).

Derivational Suffix       Morphemes added to the end of base
                          words that affect the meaning and/or
                          part of speech (domin-ance).

Morpheme Juncture Schwa   The unstressed syllable in
                          morphologically complex words contains a
                          reduced vowel sound (opposition).
                          These words contain a phonological shift
                          at the morpheme juncture.

Homophone                 The meaning of the homophone
                          is understood in the context of a
                          sentence and it is represented using
                          correct letters sequences (waist/waste).

Greek and Latin Root      A unit of meaning deriving from Greek or
                          Latin origin in which prefixes and
                          suffixes are added (psychology: psych
                          means 'spirit' or 'soul' in Greek).
                          Most roots are bound morphemes, or
                          incomplete words.

Assimilated Prefix        Also known as absorbed prefixes.
                          The sound and spelling of the final
                          consonant is 'absorbed' into the initial
                          consonant of a base word or root to
                          which the prefix is affixed (an-notate).

Note. Also see Daffern & Mackenzie (2015)