Some contingencies of spelling.

Green et al. (1987) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment.

They asked: could kids pick up correct spelling just by reading and writing a lot?

The paper maps out hidden contingencies that might let standard forms appear without drill sheets.

The authors found no new data.

Instead they sketched a route for spelling to emerge as a side effect of rich reading-writing experiences.

They urged behavior analysts to test these natural contingency packages in real classrooms.

Anderle et al. (2025) took the dare. They gave kids game-based writing tools and saw small, jumpy gains—proof that the idea can be tried, but also that fun alone is not enough.

Favart et al. (2016) show a related effect: when teens with language impairment write for a real reader, their stories suddenly become clear and cohesive. The common thread is changed contingencies—purpose and audience matter more than worksheets.

Cheng et al. (2011) looked at children with motor problems. These kids lag in writing even though they read fine, hinting that sheer exposure may grow reading while leaving spelling behind. Together the papers say: reading volume helps, but writing contingencies need deliberate shaping.

Stop drilling every spelling rule. Pair daily reading with real writing tasks that have a reader, a purpose, and quick natural feedback. Track if standard forms creep in over time. If they don’t, add tiny prompts or models—keep the contingency, skip the massacre of worksheets.