An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities

Abstract

This study includes a spelling inventory and attitude survey that were administered to pre-service education undergraduates. Analyzed using traditional performance levels as guidelines, no students scored at an independent level, 71% scored within an instructional level, and 29% scored at a frustration level. Inventory results and survey comments demonstrated the students’ heavy reliance on letter/ sound correspondences to guide their attempts at spelling. The majority commented that, as a teacher, they would help struggling spellers by telling them to “sound out the word.” Results suggest that, as future teachers, pre-service students must be instructed beyond the alphabetic stage and shown how to explore the pattern and meaning layers of English.

Full text

Reading Horizons
Volume 49, Issue 1 2008 Article 5
OCTOB ER/NOVEMBER 2008
An Exploration of University Students’
Spelling Abilities
Mary Jo Fresch∗
∗Ohio State University at Marion
Copyright c
2008 by the authors. Reading Horizons is produced by The Berkeley Electronic
Press (bepress). http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading horizons

An Exploration of University Students’
Spelling Abilities
Mary Jo Fresch
Abstract
This study includes a spelling inventory and attitude survey that were administered to pre-
service education undergraduates. Analyzed using traditional performance levels as guidelines,
no students scored at an independent level, 71% scored within an instructional level, and 29%
scored at a frustration level. Inventory results and survey comments demonstrated the students’
heavy reliance on letter/ sound correspondences to guide their attempts at spelling. The majority
commented that, as a teacher, they would help struggling spellers by telling them to “sound out
the word.” Results suggest that, as future teachers, pre-service students must be instructed beyond
the alphabetic stage and shown how to explore the pattern and meaning layers of English.

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 53
An Exploration of University Students’
Spelling Abilities
Mary Jo Fresch, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University at Marion
Abstract
This study includes a spelling inventory and attitude survey that
were administered to pre-service education undergraduates. Analyzed
using traditional performance levels as guidelines, no students
scored at an independent level, 71% scored within an instructional
level, and 29% scored at a frustration level. Inventory results and
survey comments demonstrated the students’ heavy reliance on let-
ter/sound correspondences to guide their attempts at spelling. The
majority commented that, as a teacher, they would help struggling
spellers by telling them to “sound out the word.” Results suggest
that, as future teachers, pre-service students must be instructed be-
yond the alphabetic stage and shown how to explore the pattern
and meaning layers of English.
Research on various aspects of children’s spelling development spans decades
of inquiry (Allal, 1997; Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2004; Beers &
Henderson, 1977; Fresch, 2005; Fresch, 2000; Henderson, 1985; Perfetti, Rieben,
& Fayol, 1997; Read, 1971; Templeton & Morris, 2000; Zutell, 1979). Stages or
phases of spelling development progress as students’ experiences and knowledge of
English orthography increase. Each stage has identified characteristics of develop-
ment that lie along a continuum and individual development of understandings
about the language occurs at different rates. Some children move along quickly,
using reading and writing instruction to inform spelling development (Bear, et al.,
2004; Zutell & Rasinski, 1989) while others struggle depending on a variety of issues
including instructional approach (Gill & Scharer, 1996; Morris, Blanton, Blanton,
& Perney, 1995) and individual experiences such as vocabulary development (Zutell

54 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
& Rasinski, 1989). “The evidence that adult learners do follow a developmental pat-
tern of spelling acquisition and that this pattern is very similar to that of children is
important for the planning of assessment and instruction” (Viise, 1996, p. 577).
Without a doubt, lexical knowledge amassed by reading experiences influ-
ences adult spellers’ performance. Writers may attempt to spell a word based on a
known spelling pattern, or rule, and then access their lexical knowledge to proof-
read the attempt (Burt & Fury, 2000). While the importance of adult reading
experiences cannot be underestimated, the need for phonological and morphologi-
cal knowledge is apparent (Burt & Fury, 2000; Shankweiler, Lundquist, Dreyer, &
Dickinson, 1996). “It is accepted by most developmental researchers that deficits
in phonological processing are fundamental impairments of children’s reading and
spelling development” (Burt & Fury, 2000, p. 5). Hughes and Searle (1997) argue
that one must continue developing to move beyond phonological processing. The
speller must “work consciously to understand, master, and integrate the various log-
ics that together constitute English: sound, look, and syntactic and semantic mean-
ing. We cannot overemphasize the importance of this change in thinking about
spelling to the long-term development of spelling ability” (Hughes & Searle, 1997,
p. 30). Research has demonstrated that gaps in this continuum of development may
continue to trouble spellers later in life (Bennett-Kastor, 2004; Holmes & Castle,
2001; Holmes & Malone, 2004; Schlagal, 1992).
While research on adult spellers does exist (Hanlon & Cantrell, 1999; Krashen,
1993; Massengill, 2006; Viise, 1996), authors of these studies generally work with
spelling challenged adults. As researchers provide experiences in developing spell-
ing knowledge, they must first acknowledge attitudes, such as embarrassment and
frustration, of the research subjects acknowledging that issues of self-concept can
interfere with adults’ attempts to learn new spelling strategies (Massengill, 2006).
Ideally, being aware of the attitudes of adults provides guidance in designing in-
struction. Chandler (2000) used data from student surveys to drive her redesign
of spelling instruction at the secondary level. Her exploration of the students’
knowledge and attitudes about spelling provided direction in helping to improve
their writing skills. Chandler (2000) states, “when we hold secondary students ac-
countable for poor spelling but do not provide any deliberate instruction regarding
how to become better spellers, we abdicate our absolutely essential responsibility
to help all writers in our care move forward from wherever they may be in their
development” (p. 94).

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 55
Current Study
This study is a preliminary step in recognizing the needs of adult spellers
in a university setting. The participants of this study have a pending, important
role in society as they are education majors. As pre-service teachers, they are key
to future generations of literate adults. Recognizing their skills and attitudes about
spelling is essential to their development as teachers and surveying them provides
guidance for spelling instruction that may be needed before they become in-
service teachers. The questions for the study were:
How well do adult students perform on an inventory of age-appro- •
priate spelling patterns?
What are adult students’ perceptions of themselves as spellers? •
What strategies do adult students claim to use when spelling unknown •
words and are these demonstrated in their inventory performance?
Methodology
Participants
Participants were seventeen students enrolled in Writing Course in the
Elementary Education Major, a required part of the education major at a large
mid-western university. All students were either junior or senior status in the under-
graduate, non-certifying program as a graduate degree program provides methods
courses to meet the requirements for state licensing. Students who complete their
undergraduate degree and then apply for the Masters of Education program must
have a 3.0 grade point average to qualify. The selection of this one class was based
on availability of a content related course (writing) for only education majors, the
instructor’s willingness to include the research as part of her course with under-
graduates, and the fact that the course is offered by her once a year. Considered by
the instructor and myself as an exploratory study, the results will guide our future
research and course content.
Students were given a spelling inventory of 25 words (See Table 1). Following
the inventory, the students completed a survey of eight questions regarding their
attitudes about spelling (See Table 2). Thirteen students provided their age, which
ranged from 21 to 50, with a mean age of 24. Two respondents were male, 15
were female.

56 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
Table 1. Spelling inventory
Word Target spelling feature Feature
score
poignant Diphthong 3
premonition Prefix, suffix 4
commiserate Doubling consonant as syllable juncture 4
conspiracy Vowel alternation 3
designation Consonant alternation 4
irascible -ible, -able variations 4
irreplaceable Absorbed/assimilated prefix 4
digresses Plurals 3
credence Derivations 2
earring Compound word 2
cymbal Homonym 2
bombard Consonant alternation 2
partisan Vowel alternation 3
illicit Absorbed/assimilated prefix 3
illegible -ible, -able variations 3
metacognition Prefix 4
epiphanies Plurals 4
their High frequency 1
matriarch Derivations 3
efficacy Changing consonant sound (/k/, /s/) 4
therefore Compound word 2
annoyance Diphthong 3
plausible -ible, -able variations 2
condemn Silent consonants 2
judgment Suffix 2

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 57
Table 2. Survey
1. Do you think of yourself as a good speller? Why or why
not?
2. How did you learn to spell?
3. As a young person, when you had questions about how to
spell a word, what advice were you given? Was this advice
helpful? Do you still use that advice today? Why or why
not?
4. As an adult, when you are writing and come to something
that you can’t spell, what do you do?
5. Who is a good speller that you know?
6. What makes this person a good speller?
7. If you knew someone was having trouble with spelling, how
would you help?
8. What would you like to do better as a speller?
The Spelling Inventory
To gain information regarding students’ spelling abilities, an inventory was
designed to observe “on the run” strategies, or attempts made without assistance of
Spell Check or a dictionary. The inventory (See Table 1 for words and features) was
based on work by researchers of older students that delineate the word features with
which mature spellers should be familiar (Bear, et al., 2004; Fresch, 2002; Goodman,
Watson & Burke, 2005; Templeton, 1983; Westwood, 1999). Words were selected to
fit these spelling features with some of the words being chosen for their appear-
ance in current assigned readings and high frequency use in college level work. For
instance, in education courses, terms such as efficacy, metacognition, and illegible
often appear in assigned readings. Current event discussions include partisan, judg-
ment, and irreplaceable. The words were pronounced, used in a sentence to provide
context, and repeated. The entire list was reread, and any students requesting a
repeated word could also hear the context sentence again.

58 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
The Survey
The Burke Reading Interview (Goodman, et al., 2005) was used as a frame-
work for developing the survey questions with the questions based on spelling
rather than reading. The eight questions were designed with the help of the writ-
ing course instructor (See Table 2). Both the instructor and I had vested interests
in understanding the skills and attitudes of these students. As the instructor for
several of the graduate level reading methods courses, I wanted to be certain we
both addressed these students’ needs before their student teaching experience. In
particular, I am responsible for a phonics course the students take during one of
their three quarters of method courses. Consequently, information gathered in the
survey and performance on the spelling inventory could help with future instruc-
tional planning for the phonics course. The instructor of the writing course voiced
a concern similar to Chandler (2000) knowing that simply marking their incorrect
spellings does little to instruct. Her desire was to provide more informed comments
when evaluating students’ written assignments. Number four of the survey asked
students, “As an adult, when you are writing and come to something that you can’t
spell, what do you do?” Responses to this question could then be compared to the
observable performance on the inventory.
Data Analysis
Two sets of criteria were used to score the inventories. First, a student was
given a quantitative score for percent correct and this percentage identified each
respondent’s level of performance. Using traditional guidelines (Henderson, 1985)
for distinguishing levels, any student scoring 50% or less was considered to be op-
erating in the frustration range, between 50% and 80% as instructional range, and
above 80% as independent range (cf. Morris, Nelson, & Perney, 1986).
Second, a qualitative score reflected specific differences in types of spelling
errors made by students. A number of scoring guides exist similar to the one used
in this study (Morris, et al., 1986; Shankweiler, et al., 1996; Worthy & Viise, 1996).
These guides assign a numeric value to a spelling feature within a word. However,
these tend to target only one feature in each word. For example, a word targeted
for an assimilated prefix such as in irreplaceable, would be scored one point if
the “irr” is correct, regardless if the speller chose to spell the word irreplacible. To
provide a broader picture of the speller’s strategies, multiple features were analyzed
as a feature analysis score was created for each word, depending on the patterns

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 59
it contained (Bear, et al., 2004). Irreplaceable contains an assimilated prefix (ir), a
root word (replace), retention of the “e” to maintain the “soft” sound of “c” when
adding a suffix beginning with “i”, and a suffix (-able). One point was awarded for
each correct feature in the student’s attempt, so irreplaceable was worth four points.
The scoring points are provided next to the inventory words in Table 1.
Using this second criteria allowed degrees of correctness to be recognized.
That is, using this scale allowed analysis of more (or less) effective strategies in
attempting to spell an unknown word. A total of 73 feature points indicated all
features in all the words were correct. This scoring also accounted for students who
missed the same words, but used different strategies in their attempts. Thus, with a
word such as irreplaceable, scores could range from zero to four, which would dem-
onstrate student knowledge of each feature. The individual word scores provided a
more accurate picture of the students’ strategies.
Survey responses were searched for categories of similarity and each question
was read and coded. For example, question one asked if the respondent thought
he or she was a good speller. While the responses were either No or Yes, each one
had a qualifying comment following the level of agreement. So, “no, I have always
struggled” was given a one and “yes, I’ve always done well in spelling” was given a
five. Remaining comments were then placed along a continuum of agreement and
scored from one to five. This approach for categorizing each set of answers was
completed for all eight questions.
Results
Overall performance on inventory
The students’ inventory and feature analysis scores are displayed in Table 3.
Inventory scores ranged from eight to 18 correct (of a possible 25), with a mean
score of 14.5 correct. Percent correct ranged from 32% to 72%, with 58% as the
mean. No students scored at the independent level (80% or above). The majority
of the students (71%) scored within the instructional level (50 – 80%). More than
one-quarter (29%) of the students scored within the frustration level (below 50%).
The features scores ranged from 43 to 65 (of 73 possible points), with a mean score
of 58 points. Percent correct ranged from 59% to 89%, with 79% as the mean.
Figure 1 displays the percent correct on the inventory compared to the percent
correct of features.

60 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
Table 3. Performance on 25 word spelling inventory
Student
ID#
Raw inventory
score (Of 25)
Percent
correct
Raw feature score
(Of 73)
Percent
correct
1 8 32
Frustration
43 59
2 10 40 53 73
3 10 40 52 71
4 12 48 54 74
5 12 48 52 71
6 13 52
Instructional
57 78
7 14 56 54 74
8 15 60 55 75
9 15 60 61 84
10 15 60 60 82
11 17 68 62 85
12 17 68 62 85
13 17 68 61 84
14 18 72 62 85
15 18 72 64 88
16 18 72 64 88
17 18 72 65 89
Mean 14.5 58 58 79
Figure 1. Comparison percent correct for inventory and features

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 61
In analyzing the scored attempts, students scoring within the frustration
range appeared to use only sounding out as a strategy, whereas students at the upper
end of instructional level used sounding and some morphological information in
their attempts. For example, students in the frustration range wrote irascible as ires-
able, eraassable, and uraziable. Examples of student attempts in the instructional
range were irrasible and irrassible. None of the frustration level students used the
–ible ending, and appeared to be most influenced by trying to represent exact let-
ter/sound relationships. The majority of the instructional level students used –ible,
appearing to understand how to add this ending to a word stem or root.
Designation was the only word all 17 students spelled correctly. This word
has a high letter/sound relationship match. Other words that were correctly spelled
by 90% or more of the students were:
earring • (94%), with only one student spelling it earing,
bombard • (94%), with one student spelling it bombared,
metacognition • (94%), spelled once as medacognition, and
their • (94%), with one incorrect spelling of there
Patterns of common errors were condem for condemn (thus missing the si-
lent consonant pattern), and creadance, creedance, credance for credence (all using
the –ance ending instead of –ence). Various errors were made with premonition
with all students correctly writing the first target pattern, the prefix pre- and most
students having the last target pattern, -tion, correct. Two students chose –sion, and
one each wrote “-science, “-shen”, and “-cion.” However, the middle two syllables
caused considerable diff iculties. The most common error was to choose “-min” as
the middle syllable that contained the schwa sound (the vowel in the unstressed
syllable). Students in the frustration level wrote premanision, premenition, prene-
science, preminicion, and premanition. Students in the instructional range wrote
preminition (most common choice), premenision, premenishen, premenition, and
preminission. While the schwa sound is difficult to predict, proofreading the er-
rors apparently did not help the students self-correct more obvious errors (i.e. the
/sh∂n/ sound at the end of words is not spelled “shen”). While this word may be
one the students have heard, their exposure to it in print may be minimal.
A word with multiple challenges for the students was illegible. Attempts
included elledgeable, illegeble, illegable, eledgable, illedgeable and eligible. Many of
these attempts, used by more than one student, ignored one or more of three pat-
terns contained in the word: assimilated prefix, root word (leg-; from Latin legere
“to read”), and suffix (-ible). Students in the frustration range were more likely to
begin the word with el-, thus demonstrating an insecure knowledge of variations of
the assimilated in - prefix and a reliance on their ear to provide information. The use

62 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
of –ledge for the middle sound showed an unawareness of this word’s relationship
to legible, a word they may see quite often in writing course rubrics.
Another challenging word was commiserate as only four of the 17 students
spelled it correctly. The most common error was to spell the word with only one
/m/. This error showed an understanding of the surface structure of the prefix,
but not the deep structure knowledge of the prefix and base word. The prefix
com-, attached to a form of misery would require both /m/s. Ear dominance was
also evident with the higher scoring students (64%, 68%, and 68% correct) when a
“z” was used to represent the /s/. Students at the frustration level had attempts such
as commesurate, and commissorate, again showing unawareness of the relationship
to a similarly spelled base word.
The relationship between a student’s raw inventory score and raw feature
score was tested for significance. Using Pearson r, a significant relationship (+. 94)
was found (p < .005). Not surprisingly, the students who correctly spelled more
words attained higher feature scores. The students at the higher end of the instruc-
tional range also scored more feature points for words missed than students in the
lower levels. That is, two students might have both missed eff icacy (worth “4” fea-
ture points), but lower level student scored one point for spelling it ephacacey and
the higher level student scored three points for writing effacacy. Such differences in
the students’ attempts were observed in many of the three and four point words.
Responses on the Survey
All students scoring in the instructional range believed they were fairly good
spellers. Of the five students in the frustration range, only one commented on
struggling consistently with spelling, and the others rated themselves as average
spellers. When asked how they learned to spell, 59% noted through sounding out
words and 29% by memorizing for spelling tests. The student who scored the high-
est, noted that reading helped her learn to spell.
When asked what advice they were given when they needed help with spell-
ing, 65% responded they were told to sound it out and 47% said they were sent to
a dictionary (two students suggested both). But Respondent S12 did not believe the
advice to use a dictionary was helpful. She stated:
My teachers always told us to get a dictionary and look it up. We
always asked them “if we don’t know how to spell it, how are we going
to find it?” Their plan worked for words that weren’t too tricky (the
ones that didn’t have too many silent letters). I don’t use the advice
any more, because if I spell something wrong the computer usually
catches it.

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 63
In responding to the second part of Question Three, which asked if they still
use the advice they were given when young, the majority of the students said they
used what they were taught. Sounding out was still used by 65%, dictionaries were
still used by 18%, but 18% said they no longer use the advice they were given and
instead rely on Spell Check. As Respondent S5 explained regarding what advice she
was given and what she still does, “Sound it out! This does not always work. I do
use this advice but it does not help that much, I do it because it’s the only way I
learned.” Many talked about the problems sounding out presents:
Sometimes it is useful, but the english [sic] language it [sic] some- •
times more complex than just “sounding it out” (S3);
...but now I am aware of more tricky letter combinations (S10); •
It does work but not it [sic] all cases. •
When asked what they do when they are writing and cannot spell a word,
65% noted they would use the Spell Check feature on a computer. Respondent
S7 seemed frustrated by this approach as when she “sound[s] out the word or if a
computer is near I use it. I use Dictionary.com or Spellcheck. It is a shame that I
need a machine to help me spell, but how else can I learn to spell? Isn’t it a little
late?” Other approaches used by the students were looking in a dictionary (41%),
write the word then look at it for correctness (24%), and sound it out (12%).
Sounding out, the method they most often learned and had been given as help
when they were young, was the one they claimed to employ the least. There seemed
to be a discrepancy between Question three (65% sound it out) and Question four
(65% use Spell Check), which may well be due to the amount of writing done on
the computer for college work. In order for students to allow the Spell Check to
“help” them, they must sound out the word and then compare alternative spellings
to correct their attempt. Therefore, sounding out appeared, in actuality, to be the
most relied upon strategy.
All but one student could name someone who was a good speller. These var-
ied from grandparent and parent (35%), friend or spouse (24%), to teachers (18%).
The respondents believed these people were good spellers because they were smart
or had a good “sense” about words (71%) or that they read and write a lot (29%).
When asked how they might help someone who was having trouble spell-
ing a word, 59% responded they would tell the person to “sound it out.” Many
of the respondents had similar answers as S1, who stated, “tell them to listen to
the sounds the letters make when you say them. Also breaking the letters down
into syllables, which make the word easier to spell.” Telling the speller to go to the
dictionary was chosen by 35% of the respondents and 12% would just tell them

64 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
how to spell the word. One respondent would tell the troubled speller to get to
know and understand prefixes and word histories (this person scored 60% on the
spelling inventory). Another respondent who scored 72%, wrote she would tell the
person to read more and do “fun things” with words such as crosswords. Only one
respondent was unsure how she would help a troubled speller.
The last question on the survey asked the respondents what they would like
to do better as a speller. Each respondent had very specific ideas about what he or
she wanted to improve. These responses included improve their vocabulary (29%),
memorize the spellings of more words (29%), more accurately recognize sounds
and the rules that govern words (18%), be less dependent on Spell Check (12%),
and be more consistent (12%). Respondent S4 described what she would like to
do better as, “words that I constantly mis-spell [sic] I would like to memorize, so I
don’t have that problem because if I’m leaving a quick note and am not using the
computer, Its [sic] ??embarassing [sic] to mis-spell [sic] words.”
The survey responses gave a glimpse into the students’ perception of them-
selves as spellers. Two strategies were most often noted: sounding out and using a
dictionary. Students also noted the problems with these two strategies as sounding
out only works if the letter/sound relationship is unquestionable. That is, words
with silent letters, or “tricky” combinations cause problems when the student
relies on sound. Dictionaries are a problem if you do not already know the word
well enough to locate it. An incorrect guess at the beginning sound makes it nearly
impossible for finding the word in the dictionary. For example, misspelling for
words such as irascible, illicit, illegible, and epiphanies would have presented such
a challenge for nine of the seventeen students. Only one student seemed to have
an idea of how to help someone else beyond “sound it out.” This student sug-
gested knowing word parts, such as prefixes and suffixes might help. Ultimately,
the results suggest these students have limited strategies to help them spell chal-
lenging words.
Alignment of Performance and Perception of Self
Across the survey, students generally stated that they sounded out words
when spelling. Their performance on the inventory showed that students did sound
out to spell words with which they were unfamiliar. Some students had better at-
tempts than others as sounding out illegible and then writing elledgeable versus
illegable shows considerable differences in what each student might know about
prefixes, bases, and suffixes. Choosing to spell irascible as uraziable and epiphanies
as appif ineise demonstrates the dominance of ear over eye. A few judgments can
be made about these two students’ inability to proofread and recognize that their

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 65
attempt does not look like any word they have seen in print. We can also be assured
that they were, in fact, using a sounding out strategy to help write the words.
Question four would suggest that, although the students chose Spell Check
as their main strategy, they must sound out the word in some way to allow the
computer to search for a suitable match. Unfortunately, like the dictionary, writ-
ers must get “close enough” to have Spell Check help. To observe this, several of
the students’ attempted spellings were put into Microsoft Word© to check for
suggested corrections. After entering irascible as uraziable the Spell Check offered
erasable, unreliable, reliable, eradicable, trainable, risible, resizable, and graspable.
All a far cry from the intended word. Spell Check suggested that elledgeable (illeg-
ible) could be corrected as allegeable or enlargeable. Epahcacey (efficacy) produced
the message, “no spelling suggestions.” With each of the sounding out approaches,
problems persist for the students. Therefore, this study suggests students need more
than just “sounding out” in their repertoire of strategies for spelling.
Discussion and Implications
To review, this study was designed to, in particular, inform the instructor of
an undergraduate writing course and a professor of graduate level methods courses
regarding strategies pre-service education students’ use when spelling. Words chosen
for the inventory frequently appear in their education courses or other university
course work. “Sound it out” was the single most utilized strategy students used to
approximate the spelling of a word. Only one student thought about teaching pre-
fixes or word histories to a troubled speller, another suggested playing word games
and no other strategies were suggested.
Research Questions Answered
Three questions guided the study. First, we asked How well do adult students
perform on an inventory of age-appropriate spelling patterns? and administered a
spelling inventory. No participants were working at an independent level. Nearly
three-quarters of the students (71%) were operating at an instructional level and the
remaining students (29%) scored within the frustration range. While the words were
drawn from current university work, how often the students have seen the word in
print is unknown. Would they recognize the word in print, but not be able to recall
it for writing? This question could be further explored by first giving the students a
vocabulary test whereby the word is pronounced and used in a sentence to establish
context. The students could then be asked to write a definition of the word which
would provide a measure of listening vocabulary. Students might further be asked

66 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
to identify how they know the word (I have seen it in print, I have heard it in a
lecture/discussion, I have heard it but cannot define it, I do not know the word).
Several of the students commented on the survey about their desire to expand and
improve their vocabulary. This, too, needs further exploration: Do they mean read-
ing, writing, or listening vocabulary?
Second, we asked, What are adult students’ perceptions of themselves as
spellers? This question was addressed through a short survey where all students
were reserved in their self-assessment. Most of them believed they were “average”
or “pretty good” spellers. One student in the frustration range noted that she
struggled with spelling. The participants’ comments suggested that few felt conf i-
dent in their spelling skills. Smith (2004) suggests that “spelling is conspicuous, and
probably the only aspect of writing that most people feel competent to pass judg-
ment on, so errors are treated almost as antisocial behavior” (p. 288). While there
are 26 letters in the English alphabet, those letters combine to make from 40 to 44
different sounds (Fox, 2000; Henry, 2003; Savage, 2001). When strictly spelling by
“ear,” inaccurate guesses can occur, and as student S4 put it “Its [sic] ??embarassing
[sic] to mis-spell [sic] words”.
Finally, we compared the inventory and survey results when we asked, What
strategies do adult students claim to use when spelling unknown words and are
these demonstrated in their inventory performance? Sounding out remained the
most frequently used and discussed strategy. The students suggested Spell Check
was their current way to correctly spell and, for many of the students, sounding out
a word could produce a corrected match by Spell Check. For some of the students,
however, Spell Check would not have helped them. Their “sounding out” strategy
so closely linked letters and sound that they completely ignored any meaning based
information that might produce a near correct spelling. Hughes and Searle (1997)
claim that students who hang “onto sound as the overriding logic for their spelling
cut themselves off from other knowledge that would help them to develop” (p. 30).
Montgomery, Karlan, and Coutinho (2001) examined the dependence on phonet-
ics to sound out a word and the usefulness of Spell Check. They found that “the
spell check functions of word processors…were only able to identify the target word
for 53% of misspellings” (p. 37). And, as Respondent S4 recognized, she will not
always be working on a computer. She understood that as a teacher, she may need
to handwrite a quick note and she was worried about misspelling a word.
This study suggests instruction that develops knowledge about the meaning-
spelling connection of English words might be beneficial for developing strategies
beyond “sound it out.” As Smith (2006) reminds us “another reason why spelling
is not a direct reflection of the sounds of words is more fundamental. It is not
basically the function of spelling to represent sound, but to represent meaning”

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 67
(p. 36). Providing students with experiences in structural and meaning analysis
could expand their repertoire of strategies (Henry, 2003; Massengill, 2006; Moats,
2005/2006; Templeton, 1983). This group of pre-service education students evident-
ly needs to examine their understandings of the structure of the English language.
In spelling unfamiliar words and in projecting how they would help a struggling
speller they generally relied on the only strategy they knew, sounding it out. Many
thought memorizing more words would make them better spellers and essentially,
these students would teach others spelling they way they were taught. Changing
understandings about how one learns to become an efficient speller and how a
teacher approaches such instruction comes with preparation and a philosophical
shift (Fresch, 2003).
Future directions of this study will provide students with opportunities to
move beyond their reliance on the alphabetic nature of English and begin to
construct knowledge about other layers of the language. An examination of the
“pattern layer of information” (Bear, et al., 2004, p. 6) would extend the students’
current use of sound patterns to larger groupings of letters. For instance, the
students who used “shen” to represent the /sh∂n/ sound might investigate and
sort words with -tion, -sion, and -cian. Beyond developing knowledge about these
three patterns, students might also come to understand the ending is never spelled
“shen.” Students might then move on to the “meaning layer of information” (Bear,
et al., 2004, p. 6). An example of this layer is the errors made when spelling
conspiracy. Examining words with vowel or consonant alternations demonstrate
that sounds may shift, but meaning-related words maintain similarities in spelling.
So, investigating words related in meaning to conspire could help students who
spelled the middle syllable of conspiracy as “sper.” Developing the strategy to
think of related words allows students to mediate their attempts beyond sounding
out. While their spelling may not be completely correct, they may at least “invent”
with thought. That is, to move beyond the sounding out strategy, students must
think about what they know about the English language. They may then develop
a spelling comprehension, or an understanding of the meaning of words beyond
the alphabetic level.
This study has stimulated ideas for continued work and several follow-up
studies have been suggested. What becomes apparent is students need multiple
strategies for spelling. If they rely on Spell Check, then how might they make the
best use of it? Would use of strategic attempts affect expansion of their spelling
and vocabulary knowledge? Does having the ability to tap into such strategies add
to their confidence level as spellers? Such questions continue to inform this line
of inquiry.

68 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
References
Allal, H. (1997). Learning to spell in the classroom. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M.
Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory and practice across languages.
(pp. 129-150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way:
Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beers, J., & Henderson, E. (1977). A study of developing orthographic concepts
among first grade children. Journal of Research in English, 11, 133-148.
Bennett-Kastor, T. (Fall 2004). Spelling abilities of university students in developmental
writing classes. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35, 67-82.
Burt, J. S., & Fury, M. B. (2000). Spelling in adults: The role of reading skills and
experience. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 1-30.
Chandler, K. (July 2000). What I wish I’d known about teaching spelling. The
English Journal, 89, 87-95.
Fox, B. J. (2000). Word identification strategies: Phonics from a new perspective.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice.
Fresch, M. J. (2005). Observing the self-selection of an emerging literacy learner.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 135-149.
Fresch, M. J. (2003). A national survey of spelling instruction: Investigating teachers’
beliefs and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 819-848.
Fresch, M. J. (2002). Teaching and Assessing Spelling. New York: Scholastic.
Fresch, M. J. (2000). Using think alouds to analyze decision-making during spelling
words sorts. Reading On-line. Retrieved January 10, 2008 http://www.reading
online.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=fresch/index.html
Gill, C. H., & Scharer, P. L. (1996). “Why do they get it on Friday and misspell it
on Monday?” Teachers inquiring about their students as spellers. Language
Arts, 73, 89-96.
Goodman, Y., Watson, D., & Burke, C. (2005). Reading miscue inventory. Katonah,
NY: Richard C. Owen.
Hanlon, M. M., & Cantrell, R. J. (1999). Teaching a learning disabled adult to spell:
Is it ever too late? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 4-11.
Henderson, E. (1985). Teaching spelling. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Henry, M. K. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding & spelling instruction.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Holmes, V. M., & Castle, A.E. (2001). Unexpected poor spelling in university
students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 319—350.

An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities • 69
Holmes, V. M., & Malone, N. (2004). Adult spelling strategies. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 537-566.
Hughes, M., & Searle, D. (1997). The violent E and other tricky sounds. York, ME:
Pembroke.
Krashen, S. (1993). How well do people spell? Reading Improvement, 30, 9-20.
Massengill, D. (February 2006). Mission accomplished…its’ learnable now: Voices of
mature challenged spellers using a word study approach. Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy, 49, 420-431.
Moats, L. C. (Winter 2005/2006). How spelling supports reading. American
Educator, 29, 12-22, 42-43.
Montgomery, D. J., Karlan, G. R., & Coutinho, M. (Spring 2001). The effectiveness
of word processor Spell Checker programs to produce target words for misspellings
generated by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 16, 27-41.
Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and
achievement in six classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 96, 145-162.
Morris, D., Nelson, L., & Perney, J. (1986). Exploring the concept of “spelling
instructional level” through the analysis of error-types. The Elementary
School Journal, 87, 180-200.
Perfetti, C. A., Rieben, L., & Fayol, M. (1997). Learning to spell: Research, theory
and practice across languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Read, C. (1971). Pre-school children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard
Educational Review, 41, 1-34.
Savage, J. F. (2001). Sound it out!: Phonics in a balanced reading program. Boston:
McGraw Hill.
Schlagal, R. C. (1992). Patterns of orthographic development into the intermediate
grades. In S. Templeton and D. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic
knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial Festschrift for
Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 31-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading
and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 267-294.
Smith, F. (2006). Reading without nonsense (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Templeton, S. (1983). Using the spelling/meaning connection to develop word
knowledge in older students. Journal of Reading, 27, 8-14.

70 • Reading Horizons • V49.1 • 2008
Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (2000). Spelling. In M. L. Kamil, R. Barr, P. D. Pearson
& P. B. Mosenthal, (Eds.) Handbook of reading research (Volume III, pp. 525-
543). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Viise, N. M. (1996). A study of the spelling development of adult literacy learners
compared to that of classroom children. Journal of Literacy Research, 28,
561-587.
Westwood, P. (1999). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment. Camberwell,
Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.
Worthy, J. & Viise, N. M. (April 1996). Morphological, phonological, and
orthographic differences between the spelling of normally achieving children
and basic literacy adults. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
8, 139-159.
Zutell, J. (1979). Spelling strategies of primary school children and their relationship
to Piaget’s concept of decentration. Research in the Teaching of English, 13,
69-80.
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. (1989). Reading and spelling connections in third and
fourth grade students. Reading Psychology, 10, 137-156.
About the Author:
Mary Jo Fresch is a Professor in the College of Education and Human Ecology at
The Ohio State University at Marion. Dr. Fresch teaches graduate courses in literacy
and children’s literature. Her research interests are spelling and word study.
An Exploration of University Students’ Spelling Abilities