Mark Weakland Literacy

In Part I, I put forth the idea of that the scientific theory of reading is like a map. Let’s call it The Map of Reading Theory. For teachers to get the ultimate destination point (X) - capable and happy readers, writers, and spellers - they must have the map in their possession and know how to read it. Most importantly, they must follow it!
 
I also put forth the proposition that if reading, writing, and spelling success is going to be scaled to a point where the success is district-wide (beyond the individual classrooms of highly capable teachers), then it is necessary to follow other maps as well. I see these additional maps as:
 
Map of Literacy Leadership.
​This map describes how literacy leaders gather into a team capable of solving literacy problems and promoting literacy solutions within a district or school. Its features are the general laws and facts found in theories of human interaction, leadership, and team-dynamics. I’d say it’s also based on the research and writing of people like Bruce Joyce, Beverly Showers, John Hattie, and others.

Map of Plans and Programs
This map describes the components of an effective literacy plan and guides the literacy leadership team as they construct it. Commander Chris Hatfield (NASA astronaut) says, “Space exploration demands that we have a short, one-page solution to any problem.” A literacy plan won’t be a one-page document. But it should be compact and to the point, describing what content, instructional methods, and literacy frameworks will be combined into a plan capable of producing strong readers, writers, and spellers.

I see this map as being different from the others. It is not so much a narrative that describes the features of a scientific theory as it is a collection of information gathering documents (constructed by the team) that allow the team to map out a new literacy plan. However, what is included in this plan (via the documents) is absolutely grounded in the Map of Reading Theory

This plan is a melding of various literacy programs and/or practices, such as a basal reading series with best practices from balanced literacy, or a guided reading program plus Kid Writing plus Spelling Connections, and so forth.

The Map of Implementation
​I also call this The Map of Space and Time. This map describes how a literacy plan is implemented across classrooms and buildings (space) and over multiple years (time). For full implementation to occur, that is to say for the plan to get students to destination point X year after year, teacher and literacy leaders must partake in professional development and administrators must give enlightened oversight to the entire process. Like the Map of Leadership, this map features the general laws and facts found in the theories of leadership and team-dynamics. It is also based on research that describes the actions and behaviors of teachers and administrators that lead to effective and sustained literacy practices.  

​
When maps are followed, the instructional capability and the content knowledge of teachers and administrators are deepened, and literacy programs are strengthened across a system, from classroom to grade level to school to district. In turn, more and more students become successful and happy readers, writers, and spellers. And that is the ultimate point of arrival.

As I prepare to travel to ILA’s 2018 Conference, maps are on my mind. I’ll use a mental map to get from my home in the hinterlands to the Pittsburgh Airport. Knowing the roads of western Pennsylvania well, I have no need for Google or Apple maps. But in Austin, I’ll use my phone to navigate from my BnB to the convention center, as well as to the parks, Tex-Mex eateries, and music nightclubs I plan to visit. Finally, I’ll use a digital or even a hardcopy map of the conference center to get to Room 18 D (where Carrie Zales and I will present our session, Literacy Crosswalks for Leaders).
 
I am fascinated by maps. Always have been. Perhaps this is the reason I am using the image to create an analogy for how literacy leaders can create stronger reading, writing, and spelling programs. For the last four years, as part of my business, I have provided workshops, consultation, coaching, and model lessons to teachers and administrators in school districts. With regards to literacy instruction, my starting point is always reading theory (as formulated by research) and the instructional best practices that spring from that theory. In a Reading Today blog last year (as well as in this blog), I called our theoretical understanding of reading The Map. Now, I’d like to expand upon that image and idea.
 
The idea of a scientific theory being a map was put forth by author and researcher Peter Godfrey-Smith. Science is largely about finding patterns of behavior – the behavior of quarks and atoms, of elements in a chemical reaction, of children interacting with text. These patterns are observed over and over again in a variety of situations. In time, facts are identified and general laws are formulated. Godfrey-Smith says that a theory of science (a.k.a. a map), is a descriptive narrative of how a particular system works. A map (a.k.a. theory of science) shows what is essential, focuses the map reader on the core properties of the considered system, and perhaps most importantly, is predictive. 
 
When it comes to literacy, The Map of Reading Theory describes reading as landscape features (scientific facts). These features include, but are not limited to, the alphabetic principle, metacognition, speech as a starting point for reading development, fluency as rate and accuracy, the idea that encoding and decoding draw from the same pool of knowledge, the understanding that the brain reads through the coordination of various processing  systems including semantic, orthographic, and phonological, and so on and so forth.

​Each feature on The Map of Reading Theory can be used to plot a path towards an ultimate destination point (X). For teachers and parents (in fact for everyone), this destination point is capable and happy readers and writers. Because The Map is highly predictive, if educators follow it, there is an excellent chance they will get their kids to X.
 
To continue the analogy, the most efficient path to X (capable and happy readers and writers) involves transecting specific map features. These features sit within larger circumscribed areas. I think of these larger areas as the frameworks of reading, writing, and spelling instruction. Consider the following:

• Guided reading: a map area that includes the understanding of formative assessment and gradual release of responsibility; a growth mindset and a dedication to differentiation; the teaching of reading strategies; guided reading routines; reading volume (a wide variety of books on various levels); and so on.
• Best practice spelling instruction: a map area that includes teaching children how to spell, not what to spell, through the use of specific spelling strategies; using spelling activities (not worksheets) that highlight sound-letter relationships, word patterns, and meaning parts; the understanding that spelling is for reading; the understanding that temporary spelling moves young children towards reading and writing success; the use of a test-study-test cycle of instruction; and so forth.
• Student-centered writing: a map area that includes the use of writing scaffolds (use the room, use a magic line, stretch the sounds and spell them) for the youngest writers; the teaching of writing traits; an understanding of how to connect writing to motivation, spelling, and reading; extended amounts of time for kids think, write, and rewrite; the direct and explicit teaching and modeling of various writing “moves,”; etcetera.

​​The list of features, as well as the areas that circumscribe said features, would fill a book. In fact it fills many books, including the 2.6-pound, 1,344 page-long book Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 6th Edition that sits on my desk (published by the International Reading Association). 
 
As I interact with principals and teachers, my desire is for them to follow The Map of Reading Theory- always! Following it greatly increases the chance that students will become successful readers, writers, and spellers. Of course, some paths are more direct (efficient, effective) than others. The more a child struggles, the more you should chart a direct course. But even then, multiple pathways to success exist. Multiple pathways, however, does not equate to all roads being equal. Some pathways are simply too circuitous and convoluted. Others are downright dangerous.
 
What is to be avoided at all costs is a path that veers to the fringes of the map or worse, off the map entirely. Uncharted and dangerous “features” include the Pits of Unproven Practice (teaching to individual learning styles; using tinted lenses to “help” children with dyslexia ), the Thickets of Instructional Ignorance (discovery learning is best for all; writing spelling words five times each is an effective way to practice), and the Caves of Classroom Isolation (“Our district doesn’t use literacy leadership teams or coaching” and “I close my door and keep my head down”). These are places we don’t want to go! 

​There are, however, more maps to consider. If reading, writing, and spelling success is going to be scaled to a point where it occurs throughout a district (beyond the individual classrooms of highly capable teachers), then it is necessary to follow other maps as well. What are these other maps? I’d say:

• TheMap of Literacy Leadership
• The Map of Plans and Programs
• The Map of Implementation (or The Map of Space and Time)

 
In Part II of this blog (which I hope to publish by the end of this week), I’ll define these maps and tell two personal stories regarding them.

I recently tweeted “It’s never to late to teach spelling strategies.” The tweet focused on the spelling strategy Get Close, Circle, Correct. At times, I’ve also called it Circle, Keep Going, Come Back, and Correct, which has a bit more rhythm to it. But no matter what you call it, its an easy to teach strategy that puts the responsibility for using correct spelling squarely in the court of the students. At the same time, it supports the difficult task of writing. Finally, it gives options for teaching students how to independently correct their spelling within their day-to-day writing. Via mini-lessons, teachers can easily come back to review and re-teach the strategy throughout the year, which helps students permanently add the strategy to their writing and spelling toolbox.

​One of the first things to teach student writers is to be aware. Specifically, they need realize that when they write, some of their words will probably be misspelled. Awareness, however, is only the first step. Spellers need to take action to navigate their spelling bumps and fill their spelling potholes. I often tell student writers that it is okay to misspell words while writing, but it is NOT okay to make no attempt to correct their misspellings. Students need to be responsible for fixing (as much as possible) the spelling mistakes they will inevitably make. Said another way, they need to take action!

One of my favorite “take action” strategies is Circle the Word, Keep Going, Come Back, and Correct. The strategy has three parts: 

1.    Spell the word as best you can;
2.    Circle the word you know is misspelled or you think is misspelled; and, 
3.    Go back and correct your circled words (or verify they are spelled correctly). 

​​To teach this strategy, model writing in front of your class and talk through a think aloud that explains how YOU spell words as you write. The following language might help you teach this strategy:

“Writers sometimes don’t know how to spell the words they want to write. If you struggle to spell words as you write, don’t worry. And don’t spend too much time trying to figure out the spelling as you write. Spell the word as best you can and then circle it. Then keep writing. It’s important to focus more on your writing and less on spelling, at least at first.Writers work to get their thoughts down while they are still fresh in their minds. When you are done writing, you can go back and re-read for spelling. Circle any additional words that don't ‘look right’ to you, or any words you want to double check. Finally, correct the spelling of your circled words or verify that they are spelled correctly. This means:

• Cross check the sounds you hear in the word with the letters and patterns you have written. Stretch your syllables so that you hear all the sounds. Check your word: are you spelling all of the sounds?
• Look up the word in a dictionary as best you can. Ask a friend if the dictionary word is in fact the word you are trying to spell;
• Type the word into a spell checker;
• If you can’t find the word in the dictionary, or if the spell checker gives you a word that you know is not the word you want, try spelling your word a different way. Think about your patterns and think about meaning;
• If you are still stuck, ask a friend how to spell the word. As a last resort, ask me, the teacher.”

If you teach kindergarten or first grade, having children circle words and then look them up in a dictionary may not be best. It depends upon the student and it depends upon how much time  is  spent looking up words (instead of concentrating on writing). I suggest that a more efficient teaching procedure for young writers is to simply provide the correct spelling of the word via underwriting. (See the next picture)

​For older students, such as students in second through fifth grade, finding words in a writer’s dictionary or the spelling section of a writing journal is appropriate. Looking up words in an old school dictionary is fine, too, especially for non-struggling students in 4th and 5th grade.

At first, your students may fail to use the “circle the word and correct it” strategy, especially if you have been consistently allowing yourself to spell unknown words for them. But don’t lose heart. Keep modeling the strategy, keep your expectations high, and don’t give in to automatically spelling words for them when they ask, “How do you spell ___?”.  

Expect students to regularly circle words and then to either use a strategy (like spell by analogy or use a mnemonic) or use a tool (such as a spell checker, word wall, or writer’s dictionary) to correct the words, or verify that the word has been spelled correctly in the first place. 
​
If you have children who regularly spell 99% or 100% of their written words correctly, then ask them to circle at least two words just to practice the strategy, and challenge them to use more advanced, interesting, and difficult-to-spell words in their writing. 
 
Finally, you may have to set a basement or a ceiling on the number of words circled. For the student who misspells many words but never circles any, provide a minimum number of words to aim for, such as, “I expect to see four words circled in every piece of writing.” And for the student who circles 10 or 15 words, set a limit so they’re not focusing exclusively on this strategy. Perhaps you could say, “You are working very hard to practice our strategy. Thank you for your effort. I want you to circle the five most important words to spell correctly.
 
It's never too late to teach a spelling strategy. So, give Circle, Keep Going, Come Back, and Correct a try in May. I wish you the best with your end of the year efforts!

Reading about Reading 

I’ve been traveling a lot lately. Luckily, while standing around in airports and sitting on planes, I’ve had a very interesting book to read, namely Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can be Done About It. Fairly technical in many places, opinionated in parts, and sure to be controversial, it’s also a fascinating, informative, and fun read about reading, especially for anyone who is a language nerd (like me). 

The book’s author, Mark Seidenberg, a University of Wisconsin cognitive neuroscientist, writes in a voice that is both humorous and authoritative. He says he has  been studying reading “since the disco era” and I believe him. His deep knowledge is apparent and disco isn’t the only 70s cultural reference he drops.  

The first two thirds of the book address the history of language development (including reading and writing) and the science of how we read (and why reading is more difficult for some than others). There are many points to ponder, including 1) the reasons why reading is much more difficult than speaking, and 2) the 10,000 year old evolutionary pathway our brains may have taken (moving from face recognition to symbol recognition) to get to the point where reading occurs.

The last third of the book is devoted to Mark Seidenberg’s takes on a number of educational issues that impact whether or not children in America learn to read. This section of the book is already creating some controversy. For a taste of this, as well as for a sad reminder of how the digital age has made it so easy to post ideological, ill-informed, and nonsensical opinions, rants, and whines, see the Customer Reviews for this book on Amazon. As for this reader, I’m ambivalent about some of Seidenberg’s viewpoints (I feel like I need to know more) and I debate others (I think his critique of balanced literacy probably suffers from a lack exposure to current-day reading classrooms that are staffed by highly trained  and knowledgeable teachers who do engage in the literacy best practices that Seidenberg thinks should be taught). However, I am in agreement with a few of his critiques, especially the one concerning how American elementary school teachers are prepared for classroom jobs (the process is lacking) and what the field of education can do to improve it.

Anyway, controversy and opinions aside, there are dozens of science-based points in the book that are really interesting to think about. Here are three of my favorites, culled from my top ten:

1. The process that our brains use for learning to read words is statistical in nature; 
2. The reading process can be conceived of as an “eternal triangle,” one that makes use of pathways between orthography (spelling), phonology (sound/pronunciation) and semantics (meaning); and, 
3. Understanding dyslexia is a difficult endeavor, but thinking of dyslexia as a spectrum condition (like autism) helps one to  grasp how it impacts readers and what types of reading instruction might be more effective for them.

For the remainder of this post, I’m going to ponder the first point: the basic process for learning to read is a statistical one. More specifically, I’m going to consider sight words, a subject I’ve written about before.

No Sight Words
No Sight Words is a subheading in the book’s chapter entitled Reading, The Eternal Triangle. The subheading sets the stage for this idea: because a reader’s brain statistically processes words, sounds, and meanings (encountered daily, over weeks and months), sight words aren’t really learned through memorization. To quote the book (page 143): “Words with atypical pronunciations such as HAVE and GIVE are usually treated as sight words that must be memorized. However, HAVE’s pronunciation is not arbitrary; it overlaps with HAD, HAS, HAVING, HAVEN’T, HIVE, and other words. Thus, what the child learns about words such as HAVE is relevant to many other words in which the vowel has an atypical pronunciation…”  

Just to be clear, because we don’t end English language words in U or V, teachers know that words like HAVE and BLUE, GIVE and TRUE end with an E. It’s a convention of English spelling. Seidenberg doesn’t dispute this. Rather, he focuses on how the brain works during reading. That brain’s process for coming to a point in which it can read a word is not a process of remembering and applying a spelling principle (although this might help a speller spell the word correctly). Nor is it a process of strict memorization, in which a child repeatedly looks at the word HAVE in isolation until it is remembered. Rather, the brain’s process for reading HAVE is one of looking at and hearing many different words, analyzing their word features and pronunciations, applying weights to these features, and then, over time, coming to recognize (reading) the word as “have.”  In the end, the word has become wholly encoded in the brain dictionary or lexicon, ready for instant recall for spelling and, more importantly, ready for instant recognition for reading (by sight, as it were). None of this is done consciously, at least not by beginning readers.

My understanding of the statistical nature of learning to read a word (such as HAVE) is this: Certain letter feature aspects of HAVE, such as VE, AVE, HAV, are analyzed in conjunction with the aural presentation of the word (as read by a parent, teacher, or the reader herself). These aspects are compared and contrasted with other aspects of other words. The brain considers the parts VE, AVE, and SAV of the word SAVE, the parts VE, IVE, GIV of the word GIVE, the parts AD and HA of the word HAD, and so on. These word aspects (or parts) are constantly weighted by the brain. In the end, the brain comes to read the target word by comparing and contrasting all of these weighted parts, allowing some to fade away and others to strengthen. 

Dr. Seidenberg’s research involves computer modeling. The computer model of reading that he and others have developed sheds light on the invisible thought processes that take place in the brains of readers all over the world. Consider this quote from the book: “Although the model doesn’t learn ‘sight words’ by memorizing them, once it has learned a word very well, it behaves as though it is read ‘by sight’… Early in training, the model’s performance on a word such as HAVE is affected by its overlap with other words. It is not memorized ‘by sight.’ However, like most ‘sight words,’ HAVE is a very high-frequency word. The model learns it relatively quickly because common words are trained more often than less common ones.”

So, how does knowing that a brain learns words via statistical analysis help me teach kids to read, spell, and write? What can I do to more effectively teach struggling readers, writers, and spellers? First of all, its important to provide opportunities for kids encounter lots of words. This means we must have them read, read, read and write, write, write. Secondly, it’s important to have effective skill instruction in place.

For years I taught 4th and 5th graders with IEPs. Later, I taught low achieving 3rd graders. Some of the children stumbled over high frequency, atypically pronounced words like WAS and WANT. Past practice was this: give kids a big ring of “sight” word cards and have them repeatedly practice these flash cards at home with their parents, on their own during independent work time, and with a teacher (but just for a few minutes a week). The thought was that students would memorize the words through repeated practice, cramming them into their mental dictionary and securing it for use when they saw it in a piece of text. 

As I learned more about the Wilson Reading System (based on Orton-Gillingham, which teaches via instruction that supports pattern recognition), I came to believe that the rote memorization method for learning sight words needed to be pushed to the background and  a method that taught students to notice patterns, read patterns, and spell patterns needed to be emphasized. In other words, the main method for teaching “sight” words should be to present these words alongside other words with similar features. Spelling and phonics instruction should be aligned, spelling and phonics should be carefully taught, and the time devoted to them should be intensive.  

Effective instruction involves presenting “sight words,” such as the high frequency words on a Dolsch list, within a context of patterns that make words and understanding "how words work. Sure, to give kids multiple exposure to difficult to learn words, we can have them roll through a string of unrelated high-frequency words on flash cards. But more importantly, we must present “irregular” sight words (which really aren’t so irregular) alongside words connected by a shared feature and presented during spelling and phonics instruction. For example, to teach SAID, present it alongside SAY and SAYS. Teaching that SAID is spelled with an A (as opposed to an E as in SED) helps connect the word, through meaning, to the words SAY, SAYING, and SAYS. It also helps the brain tease out spelling and pronunciation features that are statistically significant.
Here’s another example. Consider the schwa sound of A in the word WAS. This word isn’t so irregular in its pronunciation. Its schwa A sound is also present in the high-frequency words WHAT and WANT, as well as in contractions and inflectional variations (WASN’T, WANTED, WANTING). Additionally, the schwa A is found in other Dolsch list words such as ABOUT, AGAIN, and AROUND, as well as in commonly encountered words like ANOTHER and ALONE. Finally, the sound and spelling is present in engaging, common knowledge words such as ALASKA and BANANA.
In the end, words are read in entirety and by parts. Thus, my language instruction (reading, writing, spelling) should give attention to both: noticing and comparing parts, working to move whole words into the brain dictionary for instantaneous recognition during reading. To quote Language at the Speed of Sight one last time: “So, is HAVE read “as a whole,” or do the parts matter? This is like asking if light is a wave or a particle. The answer is it isn’t one or the other; it’s both.”

“Seven types to rule all words, seven to classify them,
Seven types to differentiate, and through instruction bind them.”

Familiar with Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? If so, you’ll recognize my quote as a take-off on the ominous inscription that encircles the One Ring. Forged by the dark lord, Sauron, the ring was powerful enough to give its wearer dominion over all of Middle Earth. (And now you know that I am a total sci-fi / fantasy nerd.)

While not as powerful as the One Ring, the seven syllable types are certainly strong enough to differentiate a monolithic one-size-fits-all spelling list and improve “memorize-and-move-on” spelling instruction.  

What follows is a bit of review (from one of my most popular spelling posts, 3/15/2017), and then additional thoughts on how to use the seven syllable types to create differentiated spelling lists from a master spelling list. Once you get to the middle of the post, you'll see plenty of examples of categorized and differentiated lists.

The Power of Syllable Types
Syllable types provide an easy way to manage the dozens of word features found in most spelling scope and sequences. Typically, a spelling scope and sequence is organized loosely around word features associated with the stages of spelling development. For example, first graders, who are developing the ability to match letters to sounds, are often given spelling words that feature CVC patterns, consonant blends, digraphs, and CVe patterns. In contrast, third graders, who are developing the ability to notice and use patterns in words, are often given vowel teams, inflectional endings, and special consonant spellings like soft c and soft g. As the stages of spelling development progress, more and more spelling features are presented to students. Scan the scope and sequence of a any spelling program and you will see dozens of spelling features listed.

A long list of features can present real difficulties for both teachers and students. First, a broad scope makes it harder for teachers to answer these questions: what features have my students mastered, which features need to be retaught, which features do my students have control of when they write, and which features are my students using when they decode during reading? Second, when teachers have an overwhelming number of spelling features to think about, they may lose sight of these big picture reasons for teaching spelling: spelling is for building the brain dictionary, spelling is to enable fluent writing, spelling is for strengthening decoding, and so on. Third, a focus on minute details (dozens of features) gives teachers and students the false notion that English spellings are nonsensical or impossible to predict.  Finally, loosely categorized features generally make spelling harder for students to learn and teachers to teach. 

I believe these difficulties are minimized when teachers use seven syllable types to guide their spelling instruction. When teachers think of words in terms of the seven syllable types, they automatically focus the breadth of a typical spelling scope and sequence. This, in turn, makes spelling instruction more  powerful. And when children master the knowledge and use of the syllable types, they have a master plan (a strategy) for decoding during reading and encoding during spelling. 

Here are the syllable types and examples of words that use each type exclusively. Also, I’ve presented the types in a sequence that can be used in the classroom. In other words, teach closed syllables first, move to open syllables, and then to the VCe syllable, and so on. 

​Use the seven syllable types to differentiate your master spelling list
My two previous posts addressed what a master spelling list is and how to create one. Once you create a master spelling list, you can categorize its words by complexity and then use these categories to create differentiated spelling lists. One way to fine tune categorizing is to think of spelling words in terms of seven syllable types.

Let’s consider this master list, appropriate for any student in the beginning stages of spelling development. This list, containing almost 60 words, is all about teaching children to notice and understand the consonant-vowel-e spelling feature, specifically A-consonant-E and O-consonant-E. To help students see how the long and short sound words differ in spellings, this master list also contains CVC words, a concept that was previously taught. Two-syllable words, many of them compound words, are also given. 

​​Here’s the list categorized by syllable types, specifically the closed syllable type and vowel-consonant-e syllable type. More complex two-syllable words are presented as either a closed syllable + closed syllable, or as a combination of closed + VCe.

​Categorizing the words as syllable types helps me to see how some words are less complex and some are more. Once I see the various levels of complexity, I can create three differentiated word lists fairly easy. In this example, the first list is made up of less complex one-syllable words that use either a closed syllable or a VCe syllable. The second list is more complex because some of its words begin with more complex consonant clusters and it has two-syllable words. But the two syllable words use only closed syllables. The last list is the most complex. It has numerous two-syllable words and some of them combine a closed syllable and a VCe syllable (for example, update and explode).

Now let’s consider a list that is appropriate for students who have more developed spelling skills. Here we see over forty multi-syllable words containing the -ion suffix, which we can think of as -tion and -sion.

Now, here’s the list categorized by syllable types, which includes the -ion suffix plus various combinations of closed syllables, open syllables, and r-controlled syllables. 

​Once again, when I think in terms of syllable types, I can see how some words are less complex and some are more. I can use this range of complexity to construct three differentiated word lists. In this final example, the first list is made up of only two-syllable words. Each word is either a closed syllable + the suffix or an open syllable + the suffix. The second list is more complex because it has two- and three-syllable words. Still, all words are a combination of only two syllable types plus the suffix. The last list is most complex. It has words that are up to four syllables long. Some words, like evaporation combine two open syllables, a closed syllable, an r-controlled syllable, and the suffix.

​Use syllable types across space and time
The seven categories of syllable types can be taught by teachers and used by students between and across grade levels. They give an entire school one organizing principal (One ring to rule them all...), thus providing a common language for all teachers of reading, writing, and spelling. At the same time, syllable types provide an organizing framework that all students can use to better understand the workings of spelling features in every spelling stage, from consonants, digraphs, and short vowels in the early alphabetic stage, to long vowel teams and variant vowel teams in the patterns within words stage, to roots, affixes, and inflected endings in the meaning stage. 

It seems to me that any strategy, routine, or method of organization that crosses classrooms and grade levels holds forth the possibility of greater and longer lasting student learning. Simply put, when students experience and use a strategy, routine, or method year after year from a multitude of teachers, they are much more likely to master that strategy, routine, or method and consistently apply it in variety of settings. If a school were to embrace the teaching of syllable types, by the time students got to fourth grade they would have had three years of exposure to the this organizing principle, which is surely a strong foundation. 

As with my previous blog about the master spelling list, this post has a companion video. You can find it on my YouTube Channel in the Development from the Drums series. Here’s the link: bit.ly/MstSpl2.

Now, more thoughts on creating a master spelling list. 

An effective spelling list is a nuanced thing: developmentally appropriate, not too broad in the concepts it teaches, varied in its levels of word difficulty, designed for differentiation, inclusive of words often used in writing, and flexible enough to be used with a variety of instructional activities. 

Three Guidelines
To start, here are three guidelines for creating an effective master spelling list for every spelling lesson: 

1.Begin by narrowing what you want to teach. For children in the early and early middle stages of spelling development, keep your list focused on only one to three features (sound-letter relationships or spelling patterns). For children in the more advanced stages, keep your list to four concepts (patterns, Latin/Greek roots, affixes, etc.). 

But narrow is only half the formula. The list also needs to be deep. By deep I mean that the list has a great variation on a few simple themes. Variation within a narrow range of features allows you to differentiate, scaffold your instruction, and expose students to words they might see while reading and writing.

2. As you consider words for making your list deeper, try to choose words that have high utility for students when they write. For example, if you are teaching the I-consonant-E pattern to second graders, pick words like ice, mile, and inside, rather than vice, fife, and incite. While these words are useful for writing the sentence, “His one great vice was inciting fife playing,” I doubt that any second grader would ever write it.

3.Construct a master list at least 30 to 40 words long. Every word should be built upon the two to four spelling ideas you want to teach. Use some of the words in a pre-test. After giving a pre-test, use other words to construct a weekly word lists for students. Or make two or three differentiated lists for groups of students. In this way, you can teach to a variety of achievement levels, varying word length and/or word meaning but staying within the parameters of guideline number one. 
    
Focus on two to four spelling features
When lists are focused, teachers have a better understanding of what, exactly, they are teaching. They are also better able to assess whether students have truly mastered a sound-letter combination, pattern, suffix, root word, etc. Meanwhile, students have a better chance of mastering whatever is being presented.

I believe you will have more success teaching English language learners and struggling readers to read and write when your lesson’s word list is narrow and deep. If you present too many features with too few examples, your lesson isn’t anchored. And if your lesson isn’t anchored, your learners won’t learn - they’ll just memorize now and forget later on. But if your list consists of two to four main roots, and if each root has a great many words branching from it, your students will have the chance to grow deep spelling roots of their own, roots that will anchor and sustain them throughout their independent reading and writing.  

Balance spelling concepts and writing words
When constructing a master list, think about the words children use in writing. A helpful resource for aligning spelling concepts with often-used writing words is The Basic Spelling Vocabulary List (Grahm, Harris, & Loynachan, 1993). Here’s a link to it at LDOnline: http://bit.ly/SplVcbLst. According to the authors, the spelling vocabulary list they present contains “850 words that account for 80 percent of the words children use in their writing — the ones they need to be able to spell correctly.” 

Also, use your teacher sense when constructing a list. As we teach within our grades, and as our students write, we increasingly gain a sense of what topics out students are writing about and what words they need to convey information on these topics. Consider keeping a small notebook labeled “Words for Writing” handy. In the notebook, jot down words you see children using in their writing or words that occur to you as you think about upcoming writing lessons. When it comes time to create a master list for any given spelling lesson, scan through the words you’ve listed to see if any work with the spelling concept you want to teach. 

Construct a master list
To use a variety of spelling activities in your classroom, you need a large number of words at your disposal. Pulling in a mixture of words from a variety of sources gives you real options for instruction. A lengthy master word list allows you to do the following: 

• Present multiple examples of a specific pattern, affix, or root;
• Use different words (with the same spelling feature) in different activities;
• Differentiate for two or even three groups of children (who are at different points of spelling development); 
• Re-teach a lesson without presenting the same words over and over again; and 
• Help students add whole words to the dictionary in their mind. A strong mental lexicon (dictionary in the mind) is critical to fluent reading and one important way of building the dictionary is through the use of a master word list.

Here are two examples of a master spelling list. Both are modifications of the lists in my January 8 post. The first one works for students in the early stages of spelling development. The second is appropriate for students in later stages. Notice that both focus on only three spelling features.

​
Where do you get words for your master spelling list? First, I pull words from websites such as The Free Dictionary and Rhymezone. Second, I get words from rhyming dictionaries, such as The Scholastic Rhyming Dictionary by Sue Young. Third, I use the dictation books of the Wilson Reading System. And finally, I pull words from my own, aging grey matter. The mind is a terrible thing to waste and I’m doing my best to keep my brain sharp with a bit of word play and rhyming.

In conclusion, a master spelling list focuses on a few key spelling concepts, is inclusive of writing words, is useful for non-worksheet activities that teach children how to spell, and is long enough to allow for individualization and re-teaching. Construct one and you’ll be well on your way to truly teaching spelling and giving your students a deeper understanding of words.

 Hard to believe it’s 2018! Onward and upward into the new year. 
 
One of my recent Tweets generated some discussion about spelling word lists, so my take on a spelling word list is the topic for this blog. And I’ll follow up with a companion piece in a couple of weeks.
 
But before I launch into spelling lists, I want to point out that I’m writing this blog to coincide with the launch of my YouTube Channel, creatively titled “The Mark Weakland Channel.” The Mark Weakland Channel doesn’t feature sci-fi fantasies, comedy specials, or shows about British royalty. It will feature 5 to 7-minute video clips of me discussing topics related to all things literacy. Right now there’s only one video! But I’m learning. I’m calling my first series of videos “Development from the Drums” (because its alliterative and because I’ll be sitting behind my drum set to up the entertainment value). So please go to YouTube and listen as I yak about spelling and lay down a beat. Here’s the link: http://bit.ly/Spllist1.
 
And now, thoughts on spelling word lists, starting with my idea of a master spelling word list.
 
Within my philosophy of spelling, the master spelling list is a key component of instruction. Once created, its functions are many. It’s deep reservoir of words enable the creation of differentiated spelling lists. It provides words for modeling strategies and running activities. And it gives students many examples of just a few spelling features, thereby helping kids focus on sounds and letters, patterns, and the meaning making parts of words.
 
Here’s an important point: a spelling list is NOT the main element of spelling instruction. Neither is it the “thing” that children are supposed to learn. A spelling list is simply a tool, one of many that you will use as you teach children HOW to spell words. As teachers, we want to teach children how to spell, not what to spell. To teach them how to spell, you need words (content), teaching techniques (instruction), and activities (for student practice, from guided to independent). Also, the weekly spelling list is one of a number of vehicles that move words from the page into the “mind dictionary” or lexicon of each student. This dictionary of the mind is critical for fluent reading.
 
Because the purpose of spelling instruction is to help children become better readers and writers, it pays to have a bank of spelling words that is narrow and deep. By narrow I mean that your spelling instruction for the week does not include too many spelling features and concepts. If you have too many features in your master list, you won’t be able to repeatedly point out (through modeling, instruction, and guided and independent practice) the features and concepts that you want your students to focus on, learn, and apply in all types of reading and writing situations.
 
Here are two non-example lists. When it comes to helping children become better readers through spelling, these types of lists do not help the cause, especially for children who struggle to read and write. The first is from the 2nd grade curriculum of a big publisher basal reading series. The second is a 5th grade list, also from a well-known basal reading series. Although the 2nd grade list is more focused, both lists have too many spelling features and too few words that provide examples of each feature.

In a nutshell, these lists are too wide and too shallow, especially the 5th grade list.​ Here is my thinking about why:

• In non-example A, the word badge adds complexity to the ways that soft G is spelled, presenting the sound /j/ as the trigraph –dge. Also, the words mule, out, wash, and saw are problematic. Why are they in there? They are paired with no other words that exhibit the same spelling features. Thus, they do nothing to help children notice and remember spelling patterns. If they are review words, they are symptomatic of the “memorize and move on” mentality of many basal spelling programs. And if they are “sight” words or words for writing, they can be presented as such by putting them on a word wall, presenting them within a space dedicated to writing words, writing them into a child’s writing dictionary, and so forth.
• As for non-example B, this list is literally all over the map. It presents at least eight spelling features, including /s/ spelled sc, s, and ce; /j/ spelled j, dge, and g(i); /ks/ spelled x; and /sk/ spelled sch. This list is way too wide to effectively teach children to notice and remember spelling patterns.

 
In my next blog, I’ll expound a bit more on how you narrow a spelling list and then bring in words to create a master spelling list. And I’ll give two examples of master spelling lists.
 
If you’re interested in hearing me say what I’ve just written (but in a slightly different way, and with a little drumming), then visit my YouTube channel “Mark Weakland” and check out my video. And consider clicking the SUBSCRIBE button to become a regularly informed viewer.

In my previous blog post I discussed how spelling ability develops - through excellent instruction -  and then went on to list an outline of what effective spelling instruction is: systematic and sequential, direct and explicit (at times), focused and mastery-based, differentiated, strategy-based, and centered on sound, pattern, and meaning. In this blog, I'll flesh out each of those listed ideas, starting with what systematic and sequential means.

When we understand that instruction should be systematic and sequential, we know that powerful instruction leads to powerful learning. One type of powerful instruction is regularly and frequently following a scope and sequence that provides children practice with hearing and spelling sounds, noticing and using patterns in words, and noticing and using the meaning parts of words, at ever increasing levels of complexity. Thus, excellent spelling instruction involves a well-designed scope and sequence.
    
When we understand that instruction should be direct and explicit at times, we recognize that powerful instruction is more than teaching a spelling scope and sequence. It also involves techniques that directly and explicitly show sound-spelling relationships, such as telling and showing how the letter F stands for the /f/ sound. In the later stages of spelling development, it means we use instruction to directly and explicitly teach children to notice, remember, and manipulate patterns and meaning, such as telling and showing them how able, noble, and bridle are made up of open and consonant-le syllables, and how prefixes can be added to able to form new words that mean very different things, such as unable and disable.
    
When we understand that instruction should be focused and mastery-based, we know that we should introduce only two to four spellings for a sound at a time, and that the introduction of sound spellings should unfold from the simple to the complex. Some basal programs introduce far too many sounds in one lesson. And if ten of our first-grade students have not mastered the spelling of short vowel sounds, then we should not move those students into the next set of spelling lessons that focus on long vowel sounds. Moving children, especially those in kindergarten, first, and second grades, too quickly through a spelling sequence leads to a lack of learning, a good deal of confusion, and the chance that guessing will become a habit. All of this can, in turn, lead to bigger problems in later grades. Our initial instruction should include many opportunities to slow down, step back, focus, reteach and review, especially when we are teaching children who are in the early stages of spelling and reading development.
    
When we understand that instruction should be differentiated, we know that because there is a continuum of development and achievement in our classroom, a rigid one-size-fits all spelling scope and sequence is not effective for all children. In November, in a classroom of twenty-two first-grade children, there may be ten who have not yet mastered the spelling of short vowel sounds. There may also be five children who easily spell short vowel sounds and are very capable of spelling multisyllabic words. This means we should consider providing different words and different types of instruction to two or even three groups of students.
    
When we understand that effective spelling instruction is strategy-based, we know that spelling instruction should not lead children and parents to believe that the only way to spell a word is to memorize it and then recall it. Rather, we know that the best instruction involves teaching students a number of different strategies, each of which can be used to spell practiced words correctly right off the bat or get close to the correct spellings of unknown words and then fix spelling mistakes,
fine-tuning words that are “close” until they are exact.    

​​When we understand that spelling instruction should be centered on sound, pattern, and meaning, we know that spelling instruction should not lead children to believe that words are a string of letters that can be memorized through a classroom activity that sounds like this: “The word is dumbfound. Spell it! D-U-M-B-F-O-U-N-D! The word is diphthong. Spell it! D-I-P-H-T-H-O-N-G! The word is discombobulated. Spell it! D-I-S-C . . .” You get the idea. Rather than the simple memorization and recall of letter sequences, spelling is orthography, which is coming up with a correct sequence of letters to create a specific word through a process that involves hearing sounds and assigning letters to them, thinking in terms of patterns found in words, and always cross-checking what we hear and see with what the word means. Thus, our instruction leads students to understand that they can spell by listening to the sounds of a word and then applying single letters and groups of letters to each sound. Our instruction also teaches children that they can spell by remembering and applying letter patterns (or word families), such as –an, -ight, and –all, as well as inflectional endings such as –ing and –ed and common prefixes and suffixes like dis-, pre-, -tion, and –able. And our instruction teaches children, both young and old, to pay attention to meaning as they spell.
    
Finally, morphology is another important aspect of spelling. Children should be taught to identify and analyze the structure of English’s linguistic units, such as morphemes, root words, and parts of speech. When younger children get in the habit of thinking about meaning, they are more likely to spell homophones correctly, as in the sentence “Their dog was somewhere out there, lost in the forest,” or correctly spell the /t/ sound at the end of a past-tense verb as –ed, as in the words helped, fussed, and plopped. Older children can use meaning to correctly spell words related in spelling through meaning but differing in pronunciation (such as define, definite, and definition), as well as spell words that share similar sounds but are unrelated in meaning (such as adept and adapt or excel and accelerate).

Good luck with your spelling instruction! Also, thank you, veterans, for serving our country with your military service. I wish all of you a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope you’ll come back for another blog post in December!

We are now at least seven weeks into the new school year. Yikes! Where does the time go? The days are getting short but there’s still time for some last minute gardening, a bike ride, or stroll down the lane or around the block. During my strolls, my mind often meanders into areas of education: how to help principals efficiently create new literacy programs, how to help kids enjoy writing more, how to help teachers teach children to read and write. In a session yesterday at the amazing 2017 KSRA Conference (happy 50th year, KSRA!), I talked with teachers about spelling instruction. Because spelling is an overlooked way to boost reading achievement, my goal was to convince teachers that they should spend time on quality spelling instruction, as well equate quality spelling time to quality “becoming a better reader” time. To that end, I offer a few thoughts on how spelling ability does and does not develop. 

Spelling ability doesn’t develop from memorizing a weekly word list. 
The most effective spelling instruction is not a weekly routine in which you give your students a list of words, have them complete worksheets and write the words numerous times at home, give them an end of the week test where they regurgitate the words from memory, and then move on to another list of words. This “memorize-and-move-on” routine does little to help children become better spellers, readers, and writers. In my opinion, children who become accomplished spellers in classrooms that use a “memorize-and-move-on” program learn to spell in spite of the program.

This is not to say that memory does not play a part in spelling. It does. A well-developed lexicon or “dictionary” of words in the brain is a construct that is critical to fluent reading. This dictionary can be built through well-designed practices, including word study, strategy use, and a great deal of practice in reading, writing, and spelling. In the end, letter-sound relationships, spelling patterns, and eventually, entire words are committed to memory.

Spelling instruction that is mastery based, strategy based, differentiated, and centered on sound, pattern and meaning is something very different from instruction that consists of little more than introducing and then testing on a memorize-and-move-on weekly spelling list. Spelling words taught via effective instruction, a focused word list, and a repeating cycle of test-study-test are much more likely to become permanent in a student’s mind. Our ability to spell is improved when we can remember the “look” of a word. Typically, this type of memorizing occurs when we see a word (and related words) many times through repeated exposure. Practice makes permanent, and specific types of instruction and word activities lend themselves to this achievement of permanency. A weekly routine of “memorize-and-move-on” does not.

Spelling does develop from excellent instruction
If spelling ability doesn’t develop from memorizing a weekly word list, then how does it develop? Additionally, how do we know that there is more to spelling than memorizing and recalling letter sequences? And what should spelling instruction consist of if we need to teach more than how to memorize a weekly word list, week after week after week?
    
One piece of evidence about how to develop spelling ability comes from research that has shown that it is easier for children to remember predictable words than it is for them to remember irregular words (Treiman 1993). Think about it. If spelling were simply an act of memorizing, it should be just as easy for kids to memorize the spelling of irregular words, such as want, does, and said, as it is for them to spell more predictable words like list, slap, and joke. After all, every one of them is al four-letter word.
    
But we know from experience that the first set of words (want, does, and said) is more problematic for children to spell. Some four-letter words are easier to spell than others! If your teaching career has been anything like mine, then you have seen more than your fair share of wunt, duz, and sed. If memorizing a letter sequence were all there was to it, then it should be just as easy for me to spell silhouette and ricocheted as it is for me to spell cannonball and instruction (all ten-letter words). In the interest of full disclosure, it took me three tries with my spell-checking program to spell ricocheted. Cannonball and instruction were not a problem. Spelling is difficult for me, so if I am really interested in learning how to spell silhouette accurately every time I write it, I should learn a strategy for remembering it and then practice employing that strategy as I spell the word multiple times.

Research has also shown that children have a limited visual memory for letter sequence. I was surprised to learn that when spelling, a child holds only two to three letters in sequence (Aaron, Wilcznski, and Keetay 1998). Thus, visual memory does not account for how our students spell four- and five-letter words, let alone multisyllabic words.
    
Because children don’t typically spell by visually recalling a string of letters, memorizing a standardized weekly word list does little to help children learn how to spell. So what does? What type of instruction helps kids learn how to spell? At the most basic level, spelling ability develops from excellent instruction. More specifically, the most effective spelling instruction is:

•    systematic and sequential;
•    direct and explicit (at times);
•    focused and mastery based;
•    differentiated;
•    strategy based; and 
•    centered on sound, pattern, and meaning.

In my next blog, I'll write more about what each of these bullet statements means and looks like in the classroom.

The Dolch Sight Words list was developed by Dr. Edward Dolch in the 1930s and 40s. An educator by trade, Dr. Dolch analyzed the children’s books of that era and identified the most frequently occurring words, such as came, get, walk, when, brown, will, could, and thank. As a Title I reading specialist, I spent a fair amount of time encouraging struggling third grade readers to memorize dozens of ‘sight words’ from Dolch’s famous list. 

But defining ‘sight words’ as words on Dr. Dolch’s list doesn’t do justice to what ‘sight words’ really are, or more importantly, how they function in the process of reading. As I’ve come to a new understanding of sight words, I have come to a new understanding of how best practice spelling instruction greatly increases the rate at which words (not just Dolch words but all words) can be learned and stored in the critical lexicon or word dictionary of the mind.

In my last post I said that research shows that mature readers read words in four ways: by decoding, by predicting, by analogy, and by sight. Unlike reading words by decoding, analogy, and prediction, reading words by sight does not involve some round about way of figuring out a word or some aspect of part-to-whole reading (sound-letter, patterns, roots, affixes, etc.). Rather, reading words by sight is about knowing a word immediately, no matter its length. When we read a word by sight, we pull it directly, in its entirety, from memory. The truly amazing part is that when we read by sight, each word we see immediately and effortlessly activates in our memory the word’s spelling, pronunciation, and meaning. These components are not experienced piece by piece. Rather, they are experienced as one wonderful bundle of looking-saying-understanding. 

To draw an analogy, look at the picture. 

​When “cat” popped into your mind, that knowledge didn’t slowly blossom or come to you in pieces, first as your seeing a set of eyes, some whiskers, a nose, and a pair of ears, and then coupling that with the thought that it is some kind of animal, it’s a mammal, and so on. Rather, it came to you all at once, instantly, directly. This is because a cat is identifiable by sight. We perceive it and understand it just like we instantly perceive and identify (or read) words such as dog, fish, and cucumber. By the way, the picture is of our cat Pawpurr, now almost 22 years old!
​
So aside from Pawpurr the cat,  how does all of this relate to spelling? According to Linnea Ehri and Sandra McCormick, the processes that are at the heart of sight word learning are connection-forming processes. “Connections are formed that link the written forms of the words to their pronunciations and meanings," they say. "This information is stored in the reader’s mental dictionary or lexicon... These connections are formed out of readers’ general knowledge of grapheme-phoneme correspondences that recur in many words.” (p. 341). In other words, connections between letter units (graphemes) that symbolize sound units (phonemes), help us store words in memory. Now think: what subject teaches children to make connections between sound units (phonemes) and letter units (graphemes)? What subject helps children connect more complex sound units to more complex letter patterns? What subject connects meaning units (morphemes) with letter patterns, both long and short? It’s spelling, of course. 

Because they are so well spoken, I’ll quote Ehri and McCormick once again: “Spelling of words are like maps that visually lay out their phonological forms. Skilled readers are able to compute these mapping relations very quickly when they read words…When readers acquire working knowledge of the alphabetic spelling system, they can build a lexicon of sight words easily as they enounter new words in their reading” (p. 343).

Spelling is important because it builds the mental dictionary that a reader uses every time he or she reads. The more words a child has stored in her mental dictionary, the better the chance that she will be able to add more words through reading and to read more fluently. So it makes sense to teach spelling, it makes sense to teach it regularly, and it makes sense to connect spelling to reading and reading to spelling.

One mistake I made as an educator was to try and cram Dolch sight words into the heads of struggling readers without giving them more practice on noticing and then generalizing the specific patterns found in each word. In other words, I should have taught not only the sight word brown, but I also should have connected it to down, gown, town, frown, clown, and even downtown. Then I should have given my students opportunities to notice how these words work, spell these words,  and read these words alone and in sentences.

By teaching connections, strategies, and activities in spelling, we can help all students build a robust brain dictionary, critical for reading success.


Citations
Ehri, L. & McCormick, S. (2013). Phases of Word Learning: Implications for Instruction With Delayed and Disabled Readers. In D. E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. (6th ed., pp. 339–361). Newark, DE: International Reading Association