Structured Supplemental Spelling Instruction
Study: Graham et al. (2002)

Summary

We would like to have the supplemental spelling instruction described in detail in Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa’s (2002) article entitled, “Contribution of Spelling Instruction to the Spelling, Writing, and Reading of Poor Spellers” considered for the RTI’s call for effective instructional programs. The treatment has resulted in multiple positive outcomes which are described in Section II of this form. The supplemental spelling instruction is a structured program delivered by trained individuals. The program is composed of 8 units (6 lessons per unit) and is delivered to pairs of students who have been identified as struggling spellers. The students are taught three times per week (each session lasts 20 min). Instructors focus on two to five spelling rules during each unit. The eight spelling units are: Unit 1 (short vowel sounds for /a/, /e/, and /i/ in CVC-, CCVC-, and CVCC-type words); Unit 2 (short vowel sounds for /o/ and /u/ using word types studied in previous unit); Unit 3 (short vowel sound for /a/ in word types previously covered and long vowel sound for /a/ in CVCe-type words); Unit 4 (short vowel sound for /o/ using word types covered in Units 1 and 2 and long vowel sound for /o/ in CVCe- and CCVCe-type words); Unit 5 (short vowel sound for /i/ using words types covered in Units 1 and 2and long vowel sound for /i/ using words types covered in Unit 4; Unit 6 (the short vowel sound for /ck/ and the long vowel sound for /ke/ at the end of a monosyllabic word; Unit 7 (adding ed to monosyllabic words with short or long vowel sounds); Unit 8 (adding the suffix ing to monosyllabic words with short or long vowel sounds). Instructors use the same predictable set of activities across each of the eight units. The activities involve teacher modeling and feedback, student practice, goal setting, self-monitoring, and reinforcement (e.g., sticker book). The following seven activities are used throughout the lessons: (a) word sort; (b) word hunt; (c) word hunt check; (d) phonics warm-ups; (e) introduction of high frequency words, (f) practice/games related to memorizing eight high-frequency spelling words (word study); and (g) word building. These are described in more detail next. First, each unit begins with teachers modeling how to sort words into two to five spelling rules. For example, teachers place two or more words next to each other and ask students how words are similar and different. The teacher then shows 11 to 12 more cards and models how to sort the words using the newly learned rules. This activity is continued until the students demonstrate an understanding of the rule. Second, the students are then asked to hunt for words (outside of the lesson) that would fit each of the rules. Third, when students return the following lesson they are asked to provide the words they found to fit the spelling rule (word hunt check). Fourth, the students practice common sound-letter combinations (total of 46 different letter-sound combinations covered). Fifth and sixth, students engage in activities aimed at helping them memorize a total of 64 high frequency words (8 words per unit). Activities involve both traditional practice (e.g., writing word three times without looking) and games (e.g., Spelling Road Race where students race across a 30-segment game board with each correctly spelled word). Finally, students work together in pairs to build words that fit the spelling patterns (word building activities). Students monitor their performance throughout the activities and set goals for completion of each unit (e.g., Spelling 6/8 spelling words correctly).

Target Grades:
2
Target Populations:
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Spelling
  • Spelling
Where to Obtain:
Steve Graham, Karen Harris, and Barbara Fink Chorzempa
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2002-06506-003&CFID=5386433&CFTOKEN=92613951
Initial Cost:
$11.95 per student
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

This is not a published program. The contents of the program are described in detail in the JEP article. School officials can create the materials and reuse as they like. There is also a manual available from Steve Graham at Vanderbilt University. Cost reflects price of obtaining article and associated fees for making detailed instructors’ manuals and learning materials.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other: None
Training Requirements:
Training not required


Please see results described in Section II.

Access to Technical Support:
Contact Steve Graham at Vanderbilt University
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
20
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
16
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

We would like to have the supplemental spelling instruction described in detail in Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa’s (2002) article entitled, “Contribution of Spelling Instruction to the Spelling, Writing, and Reading of Poor Spellers” considered for the RTI’s call for effective instructional programs. The treatment has resulted in multiple positive outcomes which are described in Section II of this form. The supplemental spelling instruction is a structured program delivered by trained individuals. The program is composed of 8 units (6 lessons per unit) and is delivered to pairs of students who have been identified as struggling spellers. The students are taught three times per week (each session lasts 20 min). Instructors focus on two to five spelling rules during each unit. The eight spelling units are: Unit 1 (short vowel sounds for /a/, /e/, and /i/ in CVC-, CCVC-, and CVCC-type words); Unit 2 (short vowel sounds for /o/ and /u/ using word types studied in previous unit); Unit 3 (short vowel sound for /a/ in word types previously covered and long vowel sound for /a/ in CVCe-type words); Unit 4 (short vowel sound for /o/ using word types covered in Units 1 and 2 and long vowel sound for /o/ in CVCe- and CCVCe-type words); Unit 5 (short vowel sound for /i/ using words types covered in Units 1 and 2and long vowel sound for /i/ using words types covered in Unit 4; Unit 6 (the short vowel sound for /ck/ and the long vowel sound for /ke/ at the end of a monosyllabic word; Unit 7 (adding ed to monosyllabic words with short or long vowel sounds); Unit 8 (adding the suffix ing to monosyllabic words with short or long vowel sounds). Instructors use the same predictable set of activities across each of the eight units. The activities involve teacher modeling and feedback, student practice, goal setting, self-monitoring, and reinforcement (e.g., sticker book). The following seven activities are used throughout the lessons: (a) word sort; (b) word hunt; (c) word hunt check; (d) phonics warm-ups; (e) introduction of high frequency words, (f) practice/games related to memorizing eight high-frequency spelling words (word study); and (g) word building. These are described in more detail next. First, each unit begins with teachers modeling how to sort words into two to five spelling rules. For example, teachers place two or more words next to each other and ask students how words are similar and different. The teacher then shows 11 to 12 more cards and models how to sort the words using the newly learned rules. This activity is continued until the students demonstrate an understanding of the rule. Second, the students are then asked to hunt for words (outside of the lesson) that would fit each of the rules. Third, when students return the following lesson they are asked to provide the words they found to fit the spelling rule (word hunt check). Fourth, the students practice common sound-letter combinations (total of 46 different letter-sound combinations covered). Fifth and sixth, students engage in activities aimed at helping them memorize a total of 64 high frequency words (8 words per unit). Activities involve both traditional practice (e.g., writing word three times without looking) and games (e.g., Spelling Road Race where students race across a 30-segment game board with each correctly spelled word). Finally, students work together in pairs to build words that fit the spelling patterns (word building activities). Students monitor their performance throughout the activities and set goals for completion of each unit (e.g., Spelling 6/8 spelling words correctly).

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
not selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
Phone Number
Website
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2002-06506-003&CFID=5386433&CFTOKEN=92613951

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$11.95
Unit of cost
student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

This is not a published program. The contents of the program are described in detail in the JEP article. School officials can create the materials and reuse as they like. There is also a manual available from Steve Graham at Vanderbilt University. Cost reflects price of obtaining article and associated fees for making detailed instructors’ manuals and learning materials.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   2

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
20
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
16
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Training not required

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
selected Other

If other, please describe:

None
Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
Please see results described in Section II.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Contact Steve Graham at Vanderbilt University

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Study Information

Study Citations

Graham, S., Harris, K. R. & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of Spelling Instruction to the Spelling, Writing, and Reading of Poor Spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94() 669-686.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Almost 300 second-grade students in 12 classrooms were given a spelling subtest from the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; Wechsler, 1992). All students whose standard scores were two thirds of a standard deviation (SD) below the mean in the normative sample were identified as “at risk” in the area of spelling (67/291 were identified as at-risk). Teacher interviews confirmed 66 out of the 67 as students who struggle with spelling. Parents of 60 of these 66 students consented for students to participate in the study.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
First, students standard scores on the WIAT spelling subtest fell two thirds of a SD below the mean of the normative sample. Second, teachers confirmed spelling difficulties. Third, parents consented.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
The submitted program is the spelling instruction (description begins on page 673 in the article).

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Students in the control condition received small group instruction (equal amount of lessons) in math. Description of this treatment begins on page 674 in the JEP article. To summarize, the supplemental math instruction was delivered by trained individuals to pairs of students outside of the classroom. The supplemental math treatment was a modified version of the Peer-Assisted Learning math program developed by Fuchs and Fuchs.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2 25 29 0.00
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 15 20 0.24
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 2 1 0.63
White 8 6 0.35
Other 0 2 2.62

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 15 20 0.24
No Subsidized Lunch 10 9 0.24

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 11 12 0.07
Not Identified With a Disability 14 17 0.07

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner 25 29 0.00

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 8 9 0.03
Male 17 20 0.03

Mean Effect Size

0.38

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
Instructors were assigned to one of the four participating schools. Three times a week, they worked with each of their assigned pairs of students for 20 min a session. Pairs of students were formed in the following way. First, we told the teachers in each school which students had been randomly assigned to each condition. Then, in conjunction with the teachers, students in the same condition were paired together on the basis of teachers’ opinions of their compatibility and issues of scheduling.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:
mean performance of pair

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
2
Minimum group size
2
Maximum group size
2

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
16.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
20.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The instructors were six graduate students majoring in education. The instructors were trained to how to implement the supplemental spelling and math instruction. The instructors completed checklists during each lesson to indicate that each activity had been completed.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
First, instructors trained to criterion during training. Second, instructors met weekly with Steve Graham to discuss lesson implementation. Third, instructors were given a checklist for each lesson and were asked to complete the checklists while teaching. Examination of checklists indicated that instructors had completed 99.1% of the steps during spelling instruction. Additionally, 25% of sessions were audio taped and checked for treatment fidelity.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Examination of these tapes indicated that instructors had completed 98.0% of steps during the spelling instruction.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
not selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
This is described in detail on page 677 of the JEP article. All analyses used One-Way Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA). Some of the outcome measures were not normally distributed so analysis also included the Mann-Whitney Test, a nonparametric procedure. Results of nonparametric and parametric procedures were identical.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.