Effects of invented spelling and direct instruction on spelling performance of second-grade boys.
Pair quick teacher-led drill with open kid-led writing to get both accurate and flexible spelling.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Second-grade boys spent 15 minutes a day on spelling. On some days they wrote stories and spelled words any way they wanted. On other days the teacher used direct instruction to teach a set word list. The study switched the two methods day by day to see which worked better.
What they found
Direct instruction gave more correct spellings of the exact words taught that week. Invented spelling gave more correct spellings of words that were never directly taught. The boys also liked invented spelling more and their stories got higher quality scores.
How this fits with other research
Rumsey (1985) saw the same pattern: when students picked their own practice style and used picture-word cues, they beat teacher-run drills.
Robertson et al. (2013) flipped the coin: short drill flash-cards beat mixed decks for quick word gain. Together the three studies show that tight drill wins for today’s target words, while student-led play wins for tomorrow’s new words.
Hineline (1987) adds that group error-fix routines save teacher time without hurting results, so you can fit both methods into one period.
Why it matters
Use direct instruction when you need fast accuracy on this week’s list. Slide in invented spelling right after so kids generalize to new words and stay motivated. One period can hold both: ten minutes of drill, ten minutes of free write. You keep the data on both sets of words and watch broad growth follow.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After your usual 10-minute drill list, give kids 10 minutes to write any story and spell by ear; score both sets next day.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Four second-grade boys, 2 rated by their classroom teacher as below average and 2 as above average in basic language skills, participated in a 16-week spelling investigation. The participants alternately received, in counterbalanced order, 5 weeks of an invented spelling approach that incorporated 15-min creative writing periods and 5 weeks of direct instruction that involved 15-min periods of guided practice on spelling word lists. At the end of 10 weeks, each condition was replicated for 3 additional weeks. Although direct instruction resulted in more targeted words spelled correctly, invented spelling resulted in more nontargeted words spelled correctly, higher preference ratings by children, and higher teacher ratings of the quality of 3 of the children's writing samples.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1993 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1993.26-281