EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

Some pages and sections of this report have been omitted. Only the relevant material on assessment
findings and interpretation are included for the purposes of the Wiki.

Using a collaborative and varied word study programme

to improve Year 5 students spelling and their day-to-day writing.

1) Abstract
The objective of this research study was to explore how a variety of collaborative word study programme
activities, based on the students spelling development stages, can improve the spelling knowledge and skills of
three Year 5 students. The research was conducted in a Year 5 classroom in an independent public school in
Perth and the students were identified by the class teacher as requiring support in developing their spelling and
writing skills. The data sources utilised in the study included the Words Their Way spelling inventories, spelling
attitude and efficacy questionnaires, a preliminary interview with the students, written essays and the pre-service
teachers observations. The data collected prior to and post-intervention revealed an increase in the scores for the
spelling tests and a moderate improvement in the vocabulary used in essay writing, while the students attitudes
and self-efficacy perceptions towards spelling remained unchanged.

2) Findings and Discussion

Essential to this intervention is the diagnosis of the participants developmental stage and knowledge of
orthographic features to inform instruction during the intervention. This section therefore seeks to explain the
findings in two parts: A) the initial findings to inform the intervention instruction and B) the final findings and
discussion
A) Initial findings
The interview with the class teacher revealed that the participants had similar and average spelling abilities.
Thus, the ESI, a list of 25 words, was initially administered. In the midst of conducting the test, it was noticed
that the students spelt correctly most words from the ESI (refer to Table 1 for the summary), therefore, the USI,
a list of 31 more complex words, was also applied. This decision was guided by Bear et al (2012, p29) who
proposed that the USI be applied for students with more than 20 words spelt correctly on the ESI. Both
inventories were also administered post-intervention. Table 1 provides a summary of the words spelt correctly
(Power scores) from the ESI and USI administered pre-intervention.
1

EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

Table 1: Power scores on the ESI and USI Pre-Intervention

Words Spelled correctly
Participants
Annie
Maggie
Jennie

Pre- Intervention
ESI
(Total possible score:
25)
22
20
17

USI
(Total Possible score :
31)
22
16
13

The spelling errors from both the tests using the ESI and USI were then transferred to the respective feature
guides (see Appendix 2 for the completed feature guides for each student). Each word has a number of
orthographic features that are counted separately. For instance, Jennie, who spelt serving as serveing on the
ESI, knew the correct vowel pattern and got a feature point for that even though the spelling was incorrect. She
was confused on the inflectional ending for the word and thus missed the feature point for that word. The feature
guides were used to score each word in this manner and provided the information on whether the students know
the specific spelling features.
Tables 2a and 2b show the feature points for the participants with the ESI and USI respectively. Based on the
ESI, Jennie and Maggie had mastery of consonants up to Unaccented Final syllables but confused 2 features on
Harder Suffixes. Annie made fewer than 2 mistakes on each of the features and so her results were out of range
for the ESI, and only the USI feature guide was used for Annie.
The USI feature analysis in Table 2b shows that Annie made 2 errors on the affixes feature. This placed her in
the Late Syllables and Affixes (S & A) to Early DR stage. Interestingly, Jennie was placed on a lower stage
based on the USI Early to Middle S & A instead of Early DR based on the ESI, while Maggie was moved
down to the Late S & A -Early DR stage using the USI from Early DR (using the ESI). Based on these findings,
a decision was made to implement instruction on features in the lower development stages placed by the USI, as
guided by Bear et al (2012, p36), who suggested that instructors take a more conservative step backwards to plan
instruction when discrimination between stages is unclear, as it is easier to move them up than backwards. Table
2c summarises the feature points and development stages based on the ESI and USI.
In the pre-intervention writing samples, Jennie spelt nammed for named while Annie spelled shore for sure
and traveled for travelled. These errors also indicated some deficiencies in inflectional endings and complex
vowel sounds reflective of being in the S & A stage. The initial questionnaire and interview also confirmed a

EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

lack of knowledge in the meaning layer of words. A further discussion of the pre-and post-intervention essays,
interview and questionnaires will be discussed in Part B of this section.
Table 2a: Spelling Feature Analysis Pre-intervention using ESI
Highest
Score
Features
Jennie
Maggie
Annie
Possible
Consonants
7
7
7
7
Vowels
5
5
5
5
Digraphs
6
6
6
6
Blends
7
7
7
7
Common Long Vowels
5
5
5
5
Other Vowels
7
7
7
7
Inflected Endings
4
5
5
5
Syllable Junctures
4
4
4
5
Unaccented Final Syllables
5
5
5
5
Harder Suffixes
3
3
4
5
Bases/ Roots
2
4
5
5
Total Feature Points
55
58
62
62
Grey-shaded boxes indicate features where 2 or more errors were first located. Annie was out of range on the ESI
as she had fewer than 2 errors for every feature on the ESI.
Pre-intervention

ESI

Table 2b: Spelling Feature Analysis Pre-intervention using USI

Jennie
5
9

Pre-Intervention
Maggie
5
9

Annie
5
9

Highest
Score
Possible
5
9

Complex Consonants

Inflected endings and Syllable

Juncture

Unaccented Final Syllables

USI
Features
Blends and Digraphs
Vowels

Affixes
7
5
6
Reduced Vowels in Unaccented
3
1
4
Syllables
Greek and Latin Elements
1
4
5
Assimilated Prefixes
3
4
5
Total Features
47
51
59
Yellow highlighted indicate features where 2 or more errors were first located on the USI.
3

10
7
7
6
68

EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

Table 2c: Comparison of spelling stages based on ESI and USI- Pre-Intervention
Pre- Intervention
Participants

ESI (62)

Annie

60

Maggie

58

Jennie

55

Feature points and Developmental Stages

Spelling Stage
Spelling Stage based
USI (68)
based on ESI
on USI
Late S & A to Early
59
Out of range
DR
Late S & A to Early
51
Early DR
DR
47

Early DR

Early to Middle S & A

Decision was made to place the participants based on the USI (in bold) and not the ESI.
The following description of the Intervention is an extract from another section describing the intervention
and unedited. However, images and further sections of the methodology have left out.
Based on the feature analyses of the spelling errors in the spelling tests and the essays, some word features were
targeted for the intervention programme. The programme, also informed by a written questionnaire and interview
on the students spelling strategies, was as follows:
Day 2: Inflected Endings -ed and -ing
Day 3: Prefixes : un, dis, pre, in, re, non, mis
Day 4-5: Suffixes: ible, able
Day 6-7: Suffixes: shun endings: ion, cian, tion, ation, sion
Day 8: Reduced vowels in unaccented syllables (This was planned for but not covered as the students wanted to
learn Greek and Latin elements that day.
Day 9: Greek and Latin elements/ revise challenging areas.
The feature Inflected endings and syllable juncture was selected as Jennie missed 2 feature points on this feature
while Annie, in her pre-intervention writing spelt both traveled and travelled, showing some confusion in
doubling. There was also focus on prefixes and suffixes because affixes was the first feature that Maggie and
Annie missed 2 or more feature points for in the pre-intervention USI test (refer to Table 2b in the section on
findings). According to Bear et al (2012, p34) instruction should begin when a student first makes two or more
errors on a feature.

EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

B. Final findings, comparison and evaluation of pre- and post-intervention results

This sub-section compares the data collected pre-intervention with the post-intervention results and discusses
the findings.
Comparison of Power Scores (Words spelt correctly)
Though the same inventories were administered at the end of the intervention, it should be noted that the
participants were not taught to the test. The power scores of both the pre-and post-intervention tests have been
summarised in Table 3 and Charts 1 and 2.
Table 3: Comparison of Power Scores (No. of words spelt correctly)

Words Spelled
correctly
Annie
Maggie
Jennie
Average

Pre
22
20
17
19.7

Post
25
22
21
22.7

ESI
(25)
Growth % Growth
3
13.6%
2
10.0%
4
23.5%
3
16%

Pre
22
16
13
17.0

Chart 1: No. of Words spelled

correct: ESI

USI
(31)
Growth % Growth
3
13.6%
6
37.5%
3
23.1%
4
25%

Post
25
22
16
21.0

Chart 2: No. of Words spelled

correct: USI

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

5
0

0
Jennie

Maggie
Pre- Intv ESI

Jennie

Annie
Post Intv ESI

Maggie
Pre- Intv USI

Annie

Post Intv USI

It can be seen that all the 3 participants had improved power scores for both the inventories. Jennie made the
most growth in the ESI scores while Maggie, in the USI scores. On average, the participants had 3 more words
spelt correctly on the ESI and 4 more on the USI.

EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

Feature analyses and comparison -pre and post

The feature analyses revealed that all 3 participants made fewer than 2 errors on each feature in the ESI postintervention. Thus, only the USI was used for the comparison of the pre-and post-intervention results, though the
post-ESI was still used qualitatively, especially in the case of Jennie. Table 4 displays the individual results, the
highest possible scores, the average scores and the differences in the results of both pre-and postintervention
USI tests.
Table 4: Comparison of feature points - pre- and post-intervention USI
Upper Level Spelling
Inventory
Features
Blends and Digraphs

Pre
Post
Jennie
5

Pre

Post
Maggie

Pre
Post
Annie

Highest
Score
Possible

Complex Consonants

10

3
47

3
52

4
51

3
54

5
59

6
63

6
68

11%

6%

Post
Ave
%
Score Change

Vowels

Inflected endings and

Syllable Juncture
Unaccented Final
Syllables
Affixes
Reduced Vowels in
Unaccented Syllables
Greek and Latin
Elements
Assimilated Prefixes
Total Features
% Growth

Pre
Ave
Score

7%

5.0
9.0

5.0
9.0

0%
0%

6.7

7.0

5%

7.3

7.7

5%

7.7
6.0

8.3
6.0

9%
0%

2.7

4.3

63%

3.3
4.0
52.3

6.3
4.0
56.3

90%
0%
8%

8%

Overall, the orthographic feature knowledge of the three students improved slightly, following the intervention.
There was an average gain of 4 (8%) feature points overall, largely due to the 1.6 (63%)- and 3 (90%)- point
gains for Reduced vowels in unaccented syllables and Latin and Greek elements.
The participants made insignificant improvements (less than 1-point difference) for the other features of the
continuum. Though the intervention covered some affixes, the participants did not make any improvements on
that feature. It should be noted that the suffixes ence, ance and ise were not covered in the programme.

EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

In the post-intervention tests, Jennie showed a slight improvement in her inflected endings, using tion instead
of sion for opposition as well as recognising or using root words please to spell pleasure and fortune to
spell fortunate. These improvements were noted qualitatively with the ESI. From the USI, she used the base
words medicine and fortune to help her spell medicinal and fortunate more correctly and scored for that
feature.
Annie spelt irresponsible differently post-intervention using the vowel e instead of i in res. When asked,
she said she thought of the word respond. Similarly, Maggie thought of the word oppose when spelling
opposition post-intervention. However, both Maggie and Annie still spelt visable for visible after learning
the rules for ible /able suffixes.
Table 5 below shows examples of feature knowledge gains noted from the USI, mostly from the Greek and Latin
element feature of the continuum.
Table 5: Examples of feature gains (USI)
Student

Pre
forteunate

Post
fortunate

Feature gains
base word 'fortune'

Jennie

medisanal

medicinnal

element 'medic'

Maggie

oppistion
civerlize
convidence
irrisponsable

opposition
civilize
confidence
irresponsible

base word 'oppose'

base word 'civil'
base word 'confide'
base word and suffix

medisenal

medicenal

element 'medic'

Annie

Chart 3 presents the changes in the overall feature scores and Table 6 summarises the feature points and
spelling stages pre-and post-intervention. Though there have been improvements in many of the features, the
developmental stages remained unchanged, except for Jennie who could be moved from Early Middle S& A
to Late S & A.

Chart 3: Feature Analysis (USI)

15
10
5

0
Blends and DigraphsVowelsComplex
Inflected
Consonants
endings and
Unaccented
Syllable Juncture
Final Syllables
Reduced
AffixesVowels in Unaccented
Greek and Syllables
Latin Elements
Assimilated Prefixes
Highest Score Possible

Pre Ave Score

Post Ave Score

EDUC5509 Interventions for Learning

Wyn Priscilla Teo (21443007)

Table 6: Summary of pre-and post-intervention feature points and developmental stages.

Pre- Intervention
Feature points and
Spelling Stages

Post-Intervention

Spelling
Spelling Stage
Stage based
based on USI
on ESI

ESI (62)

USI (68)

Annie

60

59

out of
range

Maggie

58

51

Early DR

Jennie

55

47

Early DR

Late S & A to
Early DR
Late S & A to
Early DR
Early to Middle
S&A

ESI (62)

Change in
Spelling Stage Spelling Stage developmental
USI (68)
based on ESI based on USI
stage

62

63

out of range

59

54

out of range

58

52

out of range

Late S & A to
Early DR
Late S & A to
Early DR
Late S & A

No change
No Change
Sub-stage up

Analysis of writing samples

A checklist (refer to Appendix 3c) adapted from B.14 of the Pearson PDtoolkit (Bear et al, 2012) was used to
mark the pre-and post-intervention writing samples. The completed checklist (in Appendix 3c) shows that there
were improvements made in word frequency and variety, word choice, richness and evidence of selfediting. Overall, the participants improved in the complexity of their words used, showed more confidence and
richness in their writing and included recently acquired vocabulary from students personal spelling journal, such
as prudent, maudlin and gasconading.
There was no evidence in the post-intervention writing samples to show an improvement in overall spelling even
though this could be a result of students attempting more complex words such as resilient, ebullient or
engregious which were not spelt correctly. Even so, some basic words were spelt wrongly post-intervention, for
instance feild for field and infomation for information. The students writing samples pre-and postintervention and the checklist comparing both samples can be found in Appendix 3.