Auditory and Visual Problems of Good and Poor EFL College Spellers

7/27/2019 Auditory and Visual Problems of Good and Poor EFL College Spellers

1/19

1

1

Auditory and Visual Problems of Good And Poor EFL

College Spellers

Dr Reima AlJarf King Saud University

INTRODUCTION:

Very few studies investigated the difficulties that Arab college students have in spelling

English as a second or foreign language. Haggan (1991) compared the spelling errors of remedial and fourth year college students who are native speakers of Arabic in English. Badr

(1990) compared the spelling mechanisms of beginning and pre intermediate EFL students in

Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, many studies investigated the problems of students from

other language backgrounds in spelling ESL. Fashola et al (1996) examined how Spanish

speaking students spell English words. Nyamasyo (1994) analyzed the spelling errors in the

written English of Kenyan Pre university students. Holm and Dodd (1996) examined the

relationship between first and second language literacy by identifying the skills and process that

were transferred from the first language to the second language by college students who are

non native speakers of English. Ganschow and Sparks (1986) inves gated the listening

comprehension difficulties that may affect foreign language learning.

The third group of studies investigated the spelling ability of children who are non

native speakers of English. DeManrique and Signorini (1994) examined the rela onship

between phonological awareness, spelling and reading abili es among 39 Spanish speaking

student's in grade one who were or were not skilled readers. Zutell and Allen (1988)

investigated the English spelling strategies of Spanish speaking bilingual children. Bebout (1985)

collected 677 misspelled words from the responses produced on a llinthe blank task by 2 groups of advanced learners of English in 4 and 6 grade English speaking children and Spanish

speaking adults studying English.

Some studies focused on the effect of phonological awareness on the spelling ability of

students who are na ve speakers of English. Rohl and Pra (1995) found that phonological

awareness consistently predicted later spelling and that phonological awareness was mostly

related to spelling real words. MacDonald and Cornwall (1995) found that phonological


2/19

2

2

awareness ability was a significant predictor of spelling skills of adolescents. Treiman and others

(1993) found that phonology plays an important role in early spelling. Rego and Bryant (1993)

found that phonological skills affected use of sound le er rela onships. Goswami (1992)

indicated that phonological rather than visual skills that play the greater role in spelling

development. Holligan and Johnston (1991) found that poor spellers were impaired on the

phonemic segmentation task. Poor and normal spellers were indistinguishable in terms of the

proportion of phonetic errors they made.

Phonological and orthographic strategies and problems have not been the focus of

many ESL spelling studies. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to investigate the

soundsymbol

correspondence

problems

(auditory

and

visual

problems)

that

ESL

freshmen

students have in spelling English, i.e., % of spelling errors attributed to auditory and visual

problems, the kinds of auditory and visual problems that good and poor ESL freshmen students

have in spelling English words, and whether there are any significant differences between good

and poor spellers in auditory and visual problems.

SUBJECTS:

Subjects for the present study consisted of 36 freshmen students majoring in transla on

at the College of Languages and Translation, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All

subjects were in their second semester in college. At the College of Languages and Translation,

students take four levels of English language courses in the first four semesters. Each semester,

they take listening, speaking, reading, writing, grammar and vocabulary building courses.

Subjects for the present study were enrolled in a listening course that I taught. One of the

listening tasks that the students practiced in the course was listening to a conversation and

filling out blanks in the printed version of the conversation. All conversations were in American

English and spoken with a normal speed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

The 36 students took a listening spelling test which consisted of a taped conversation

and the printed conversa on in which 100 words were randomly deleted. The subjects read the

printed conversa on and lled out the 100 blanks while listening to the same conversa on in

full. Students were given time to write the missing words. A description and frequency counts

of the target words are given in Table (1). Students' responses were marked. Any word that did


3/19

3

3

not match the target word in part or in full was marked as a misspelling. Each blank, faulty

word, faulty syllable, phonogram, suffix, prefix, grapheme or phoneme within the word was

calculated as an error (see Tables 2 and 3). Spelling errors for each student were totaled. The

error scores for all the students were rank ordered. The highest 27% error scores and the

lowest 27% error scores were isolated for detailed analysis and comparison. Students with the

lowest error scores constituted the good spellers group and those with the highest error scores

constituted the poor spellers group. Table (1)

Description of Target Words

Frequency

Words with vowel digraphs Words with silent vowels

Words with suffixes

Words with double consonants

Words with silent Consonants

Words with consonant digraphs

Words With hidden consonant sounds

23 22

22

10

10

7

5

Table (2) Frequency of Spelling Errors According to Word Length

Word Length Target

Words Good Poor Group Error Rate

1 Syllable

2 syllables 3 syllables

4 syllables

5 syllables

51

31 11

6

1

100

60

63 37

15

2

203

258

216 87

35

3

738

575

495 246

95

22

1433

11

16 23

16

22


4/19

4

4

Table (3) Frequency of Faulty Graphemes Per Word

examples Good Poor Group

1 error

2 errors

3 errors

4 errors

5 errors

6 errors

specialy

espically

spichally

quishchin

aspechely

oulompeul

73

44

6

123

186

108

75

36

10

415

476

266

135

40

10

6

933

An error analysis system was used to classify the misspellings systematically and

objectively. Three categories of errors were identified: whole word errors, faulty graphemes

and faulty phoneme clusters. Whole word errors were those in which the student did not write

anything in the blank or in which the target word was substituted by an extraneous word, or by

a partially or a fully invented word. Faulty grapheme clusters refer to faulty written parts of a

word such as faulty syllables in initial, medial and final positions; faulty written suffixes and

prefixes; faulty written digraphs such as ch, sh, ck, ph, ea, ee, ei, ie, oa, oo, ou , faulty consonant

and vowel letters. Faulty phoneme clusters refer to faulty spoken parts of a word in which the

student failed to hear or misheard a written consonant, a vowel, a syllable in initial, medial and

final positions, a suffix, or a prefix correctly.

To classify spelling errors as representing auditory or visual problems, auditory or

phonological problems refer to errors in which the misspelled word does not sound like the

target word because the whole word, a consonant, a vowel, a syllable, a prefix, a suffix, or a

grapheme was not heard at all, was misheard, was added, or reversed with another. Here the written symbol does not correspond with the spoken sound, syllable or word. Instances of

auditory problems are: failing to discriminate all the phonemes in the word, failing to hear the

correct word sequence, failing to hear the word boundary, failing to discriminate between

minimal pairs, failing to hear several phonemes in a word, failing to discriminate single vowel or

consonant phonemes, failing to hear the final syllable or suffix, failing to hear the correct

sequence of CV phonemes in a word, vowel phonemes, consonant phonemes or syllables, or

failing to recognize flaps and elision. Visual or orthographic problems were defined as those


5/19

5

5

instances in which the misspelled word sounds like the written target word but the written

form or grapheme used for the misspelled part does not correspond with the target word or

target grapheme. Instances of visual problems are: confusing vowel graphemes that have the

same sound, confusing consonant graphemes that have the same sound, confusing vowel and

consonant digraphs, deleting silent vowels and consonants, doubling of consonants or vowels,

reducing double consonants or double vowels, deleting one of the vowel digraphs, adding or

deleting final silent vowels, reversing CV and VV sequences, representing consonants with

hidden sounds phonetically, and substituting one word by another homophone.

The total of whole word errors, faulty graphemes and faulty phonemes that good and

poor spellers

made

was

calculated.

The

total

of

each

specific

auditory

or

visual

problem

was

calculated.

Kuder Richardson reliability coefficient of the spelling test scores was .94. Inter analyst

reliability for classifying the spelling errors into the general and detailed auditory and visual

problems was calculated was 95%.

RESULTS:

Results of the analysis of the spelling errors that good and poor spellers made are

shown in tables 14. Table (1) shows that good spellers made a total of 203 spelling errors (80

whole word errors and 123 faulty graphemes). By contrast, poor spellers made a total of 738

spelling errors (323 whole word errors, and 415 faulty graphemes). Poor spellers made three

mes as many spelling errors, 4 mes as many whole word errors and three mes as many

faulty graphemes as good spellers.

Considering the frequency of auditory and visual problems, Table (2) shows that

freshmen students

have

more

auditory

than

visual

problems.

Good

spellers

made

136

auditory

(phonological) errors and 67 visual errors. Poor spellers made 513 auditory errors, and 225

visual (orthographic) errors. Poor spellers made 4 mes as many whole word errors and 3.5

mes as many as faulty graphemes as good spellers. On average, a poor speller produced 32

wole word errors and 42 faulty graphemes as opposed to 8 whole word errors and 2 faulty

graphemes for a good speller.

Table (2) shows that good spellers have more auditory than visual problems with word

parts, i.e, recognizing spoken sounds is more difficult than recognizing the written symbols.


6/19

6

6

Good spellers as well as poor spellers have more auditory problems with whole word errors.

But poor spellers have more visual than auditory problems with word parts.

The specific auditory problems that good and poor spellers have in spelling are

presented in table (3). On averae, a good speller could not hear all the phonemes in 4 words,

could not discriminae 3 vowel phonemes, could not hear 2 suffi xes or inal syllable. On the other

hand, poor spellers did not hear all the phonemes in 19 words, could not discriminate 6 vowel

phonemes, could not hear 6 suffi xes and nal syllables, could not hear 8 vowel phonemes,

confused 3 minimal paies, and could not hear 2 ini al syllables, and 2 middle syllables. It seems

that good spellers have the following auditory problems: hearing all the phonemes in a word,

discriminating vowel

phonemes.

Poor spellers

have

the

following

auditory

problems:

hearing

all phonemes of a word, hearing vowel phonemes, discriminating vowel phonemes, hearing

part of the word, hearing the final syllable or suffix, confusing minimal pairs, hearing middle

and hearing initial syllables.

The specific visual problems that good and poor spellers have in spelling are presented

in Table (4). It seems that poor spellers have 3 mes as many visual problems in spelling than

good spellers. On average a poor speller misrepresented 6 vowel digraphs, 5 double

consonants, 4 silent vowels, 3 silent consonants, whereas a good speller, misrepresented 1

vowel digraph, 2 double consonants and 1 homophone.The most frequent visual problems that

good spellers have in spelling are: double consonants, vowel digraphs, and homophones. Poor

spellers have the following visual problems in spelling: confusing vowel digraphs, double

consonants, silent vowels, silent consonants.

Freshmen students have difficulties with silent vowels, associating the vowel with its

pronunciation, the sequence of sounds in a word, vowel digraphs, the variant sounds of

consonants, double consonants, word endings, and words differing in one sound.

Table (1) Distribution of Spelling Errors

Error Types Good Spellers

Poor Spellers

Group

Whole word errors

faulty graphemes/phonemes

total

80

123

203

323

415

738

766

933

1699


7/19

7

7

Table (2) Frequency of Sound Symbol Correspondence Problems

Problems Examples Good

Spellers Poor

Spellers Group

Auditory problems whole word

faulty phonemes

Total

Visual Problems

whole word

faulty graphemes

Total

incradible

bickes

68

68

136

12

55

67

306

207

513

017

208

225

766

377

1143

556

1699

Table (3) Auditory Problems in Spelling

Auditory Problems Examples Good spellers

Poor Spellers

Group


8/19

8

8

Hearing all phonemes

Discriminating V phonemes

Hearing suffix or final syllable

Hearing V phonemes

Confusing minimal pairs

Hearing initial syllable

Hearing middle syllable

Discriminating middle syllable

Hearing word sequence

Discriminating voiced and voiceless C

Hearing final

C

Discriminating C

Hearing middle syllable

Discriminating initial syllable

discriminating final suffix or syllable

Total auditory

espicially

anther/enghe

hell (hill)

straction/airland

transportion

incronible

present (prison)

up (down)

kake (take)

caple/dibendes

toress

thery

attractive (attraction)

39

26

18

18

8

3

6

6

2

5

3

1

1

0

1

137

194

62

56

80

28

20

22

8

16

11

8

3

1

5

5

519

407

156

151

140

64

52

46

46

41

24

12

7

5

2

1153

Table (4) Visual Problems in Spelling

visual problem Examples Good Spellers

Poor Spellers

Group


9/19

9

9

V digraph

double C

silent V

homophone

silent C

final V

VV sequence

C digraph

CV sequence

C with same sound

hidden C

sounds

Total visual

Total auditory

Total visual + auditory

Total graphemes

cheepest

midle

relativs

whole (hall)

exelant

aske

braek/sestym

enphe

nwo/ues

echonomical

equesion

14

24

5

11

3

2

1

3

1

2

1

67

137

203

123

56

51

43

11

26

12

9

3

2

5

1

219

519

738

415

152

106

110

56

38

23

19

20

11

9

4

548

DISCUSSION:

Findings of the present study are consistent with findings of other spelling studies in the

spelling literature. Gregg, Hoy and Sabol (198) found significant differences between learning

disabled and both normal and under prepared students on all the spelling types except spelling

rule errors.

Results of the present study show that college students who are poor spellers lack many

auditory and visual skills in spelling. Auditory problems indicate that poor spellers have listening

problems. Lindamood, Bell and Lindamood (1992) indicated that the ability to compare how

and where two words differ in phonemic structure does not develop fully in 30% of the

popula on for syllables with as few as 24 phonemes.

Findings of the present study indicated that both good and poor spellers have more

auditory (phonological) than visual (orthographic) problems in spelling. This is consistent with

other prior studies in the spelling literature. Western (1983) found that phonetic strategies

constituted the major difference between able and disabled readers. Rubin and Liberman

(1983) concluded that phonological de ciencies in the stored representa ons and in short term

memory coding were probably responsible for problems of learning disabled students. Dodd,


10/19

10

10

Sprainger, and Oerlemans (1989) found that students with disordered spelling has a general

difficulty processing phonological complexity increased. Lennox (1996) found that average

spellers used a phonological approach than a visual approach while the reverse pattern was

true with poor spellers. Lennox and Siegel (1996) found that poor spellers follow a different

developmental course in learning to spell with greater success in the use of a

visual /orthographic strategy than a phonological strategy.

Miceli, Benvegnu and Carmazza (1995) found that dele on of geminates occurred 10

times more often than deletions of a consonant in a non geminate cluster. Groff (1986) found

that the presence of consonant clusters and digraphs in such words spelled by second, third

and

fourth

grade

children

revealed

that

these

letter

clusters

created

significant

spelling

problems for them. Bebout (1985) found that Spanish speakers made more errors involving

consonant doubling .

Holmes (1993) indicated that poor spellers inefficient processing is confined to

orthographically structured stimuli. their failure to retain the detailed knowledge of spellings

results from their partial analysis strategy of word recognition. Treiman et al (1993) found that

the context in which a phoneme occurs influences children's ability to spell.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Spelling is completely ignored in the intensive language program at the College of

Languages and Translation. It is a skill that receives the least attention in the language

instruction nor in evaluation. There is no instruction in phonics nor structural analysis.

Difficulties in listening comprehension may affect ESL learning. Words whose spelling requires

word specific knowledge. poor/limited phonological awareness. auditory or phonetic spelling

mistakes

To develop poor students' spelling ability, they should receive formal instruction in

spelling. Learning to spell must be treated as a complex developmental process (Gentry, 1982).

The selection of an intervention depends on the prominence of the spelling errors, the students

knowledge of the generalization of the intervention and the students' knowledge of sound

symbol rela onships (Ganschow, 1984). It is phonological rather than visual skills that play

greatest role in spelling development (Goswami, 1992). A remedial program in spelling should

realize the value of freshmen students studying a basic vocabulary and of teaching them how to

learn words they need most or would like to know. Indirect instruction of spelling through


11/19

11

11

reading and writing. Decoding and spelling instruction should be integrated teaching decoding

(Feldon,1993). Multisensory teaching and learning methods should be used multiple strategy

(Kernaghan and Woloshyn (1995); Gordon, Vaughn, Schumm, 1993). unit size should be

reduced. Distributed practice and review should be distributed. correction (Grskovic and

Bel ore (1996); Ge ner (1993) peer tutoring (Wa , and Topping 1993; Error monitoring, self

correction , proof reading, peer tutoring should be encouraged (self correction (Okeyere et al,

1997; Harward, allred and Sudweek, 1994; McNeish, Heron and Okyere, 1992). Students

should be taught phonemic segmentation skills (van Bon and Duighuisen, 1995). phonological

awareness should be increased Phonological awareness (Rohl and Pra , 1995; Gardoso, 1995);

Wilson and Frederickson 1995). sensi vity to phonemic similarity. Phonics and knowledge of

derivational morphology (use

knowledge

of

morphemic

structure

in

spelling

derived

words)

should be part of the program (derivational morphology, Greek and Latin Roots, word structure

knowledge (Henry , 1993; Moats, 1992; Henry, 1989). learning La n and Greek roots and

affi xes, word structure knowledge word speci c knowledge (Holmes, 1993), sensi vity to basic

orthographic syllabic structure breaking words into small segments (Van Houten and Van

Houten, 1991) orwords in words approach (Brooks, 1995). Students should be taught and

should be encouraged to use new technology (computers, electronic dictionaries and spellers)

to check and learn spelling. promote generalization of spelling knowledge to untrained words.

Ormrod (1986) described 2 related methods of teaching spelling to students strong in

auditory processing skills but weak in visual processing skills. She suggested that words be

visualized in terms of syllables and that in the case of non phonetically spelled words, a second

step is necessary in which dual pronunciations are learned one non phonetic to be used in

speaking and one phonetic to be used in spelling

Glenn and Hurley (1993) suggested many prac ces and ac vi es for preven ng spelling

difficulties: fostering use of full cues in reading, encouraging visualization of words and

syllables, providing

a

print

rich

environment,

providing

computers

for

spell

checkers

and

materials for word banks, and teaching spelling patterns and etymology. ample time to read,

write and use words in meaningful connected text are crucial in developing good spelling ability.

learning disabled students can learn transferable information about spelling if given sufficient

me to learn a set of target words and appropriate feedback. (Gerber, 1984)

retention and transfer from a morphemically based direct instruction spelling program (Hesse,

1983).


12/19

12

12

REFERENCES Aarnoutse, C. Mommers, M. , Smits, B., and Van Leuewe, J. (1986) . The development of and

the relation between decoding, reading, comprehension and spelling. Pedagogische Studien; 63, 3; 97 110.

Alam, Q. Z. (1976). The English spelling problems of Indian learners (a linguametric inquiry), Ind JAL, 2, 2,

75 86.

Anderson, K. (1985)

Anderson, K. (1982). Spelling errors and strategies of college students who are good readers and good spellers and poor readers/poor spellers on four complex word patterns. Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia State University College of Educa on [abstract: DIA 43 (1982/83) 3282A].

Anderson, K. F. (1991). The development of spelling strategies of spelling ability and linguis c strategies. The Reading Teacher, November, 148 157.

Badr, M. (1990). Comparing spelling mechanisms of beginning and pre intermediate EFL students.

Educa onal Document Reproduc on Service (No. ED 323 746).

Bookman, M. (1984). Spelling as a cogni ve developmental linguis c process. Academic Therapy; 20, 1; 21 32.

Brooks, P. (1995). A comparison of the eff ec veness of diff erent teaching strategies in teaching spelling to a student with severe specific difficulties/ dyslexia. Educational and Child psychology, 12, 1; 80 88.

Bruck, M. and Waters, G. (1990). The eff ect of reading skill on component spelling skills. Applied Psycholinguis cs; 11, 4; 425 437.

DeManrique and Signorini (1994) Zutell and Allen (1988)

Bebout , L. (1985) . An error analysis of misspellings made by learners of English as a first and as a second language. Journal of Psycholinguis c Research; 14, 6; 569 593.

Beears, Beers and Grant (1977). The logic behind children's spelling. Elementary School Journal; 77, 3; 238 242.


13/19

13

13

Gentry, J. (1978) . Early spelling strategy. Elementary School Journal; 79, 2; 88 92.

Gentry, J. (1982). An analysis of developmental spelling in GNYS AT WORK. The Reading Teacher; 36, 2; 192 200.

Carlisle, J. (1988). Knowledge of deriva onal morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth and eighth grades. applied Psycholinguis cs; 9, 3; 247 266.

Ensslen, S., von Benda, U. (1985). Qualita ve analysis of incorrect spelling among children with dyslexia and children without dyslexia. Zeitschrft fur Entwichlungsneurologixche padagogische Psychologie; 17, 4; 299 311.

Fashola, O., Drum, P., Mayer, R. (1996) . A cogni ve theory of orthographic transi oing:

Predictable errors in how Spanish speaking children spell English words. American Educational Research Journal; 33, 4; 825 843.

Feldon, R. (1993). Eff ects of instruc on on the decoding skills of children with phonological processing problems. Journal of Learning Disabili es; 26, 9; 583 589.

Ganschow, L. (1984). Analyze error pa erns to remediate severe spelling diffi cul es. Reading Teacher; 38, 3; 288 293.

Ganschow, L.,

and

Sparks,

R.

(1986).

Learning

disabili es

and

foreign

language

diffi

cul es :

Deficits in listening skills. Journal of Reading , Wri ng and learning disabili es; 2, 4; 305 319.

Gregg, N. Hoy, C. and Sabol, R. (1988). Spelling error pa erns of normal, learning disables, and underprepared college writers. Journal of Psychoeduca onal Assessment; 6, 1; 14 23.

Geva, E., Wade Woolley, L. and Shany, M. (1993). The concurrent development of spelling and decoding in two different orthographies. Journal of Reading Behavior; 25, 4; 383 406.

Gardoso, M. (1995). Sensi vity to rhymes, syllables, and phonemes in literacy acquisi on in Portuguese. reading Research Quarterly; 30, 4; 808 828.

Gerber, M. (1984). techniques to teach generalizable spelling skills. Academic Therapy; 20, 1; 49 58.

Ge ner, M. (1993). Eff ects of error correc on on third grades' spelling. Journal of Educa on Research; 87, 1; 39 45.


14/19

14

14

Gordon, Vaughn, S; and Schumm, J. (1993). spelling interventions: a review of literature and implications for instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities Research and Prac ces; 8, 3; 175 181.

Grskovic and Bel ore (1996). Improving the spelling performance of students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Educa on; 6, 3; 343 354

Goswami, U. (1992). Phonological factors in spelling development. Journal of child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines; 33, 6; 967 975.

Gregg, N., Hoy, C. and Sabol

Groff , P. (1986). The spelling diffi culty of consonant clusters. Educa onal Research; 28, 2; 139

141.

Hollogan, C and Johnston, R. (1991). Spelling errors and phonemic segmenta on ability: The nature of the rela onship. Journal of Research in Reading; 14, 1; 21 32.

Holmes, V. (1993). Word specific knowledge, word recognition strategies and spelling ability. Journal of

Memory and Language; 32, 2; 230 257.

Harward, S;

Allred,

R.;

and

Sudweek,

R.

(1994).

The

eff

ec veness of

our

self

corrected

spelling

test methods. Reading Psychology; 15, 4; 245 271.

Henry, M. (1993). morphological structure: La n and Greek Roots and affi xes as upper grade code strategies.special Issue: The role of decoding in reading research and instruction. Reading and Wri ng; 5,2; 227 241.

Henry, M. (1989). Children's word structure knowledge: Implica ons for decoding and spelling instruc on. Reading and Wri ng; 1, 2, ; 135 152.

Hesse, K., Robinson, J. and Rankin, r. (1983). Reten on and transfer from a morphemically

based direct instruc on spelling program in junior high. Journal of Educa onal Research; 76, 5; 276 279.

Haggan, M. (1991). Spelling errors in na ve Arabic speaking English majors: a comparison between remedial students and fourth year students. System; 19, 1, pp. 45 61.

Holm, A. and Dodd, B. (1996). The eff ect of rst wri en language on the acquisi on of English literacy. cogni on; 59, 2, 119 147.


15/19


16/19

16

16

McNeish, J., Heron, T., Okyere, B. (1993). Eff ects of self correction on the spelling p performance of junior high school students with learning disabili es. Journal of Behavioral Educa on, 2, 1; 17 27.

Nolen and McCar n (1985) . Spelling strategies on the Wide range achievement test. The Reading Teacher; 38, 2; 148 158.

Nynamasyo, E., A. (1994). An analysis of the spelling errors in written English of Kenyan pre university students. Language, culture and Curriculum; 7, 1; 79 92.

Okyere, B., Heron, T; Goddard, Y. (1997). Eff ects of self correction on the acquisition, maintenance and generalization of the written spelling of elementary school children. Journal of Behavioral Educa on; 7, 1; 51 69.

Perin, D. (1982) . Spelling strategies in good and poor readers. Applied psycholinguis cs; 3, 1; 114.

Rego, L. and Bryant , P. (1993). The connec on between phonological, syntactic and semantic skills and children's reading and spelling. European Journal of Psychology of Educa on; 8, 3; 235 246.

Robin, H. and Liberman, I. (1983). Exploring the oral and wri en language errors made by language disabled children. Annals of Dyslexia; 33; 111 120.

Rohl, M. and Pra , C. (1995). Phonological awareness, verbal working memory and the acquisition of literacy. Reading and Wri ng; 7, 2; 327 360.

Stuart, M. (1990). Processing strategies in a phoneme dele on task. Quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology Human Experimental Psychology; 42, 2A; 305 327.

Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L., Dickinson, C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high

school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Wri ng; 8, 3; 267 294.

S rling, E. (1989). The adolescent dyslexic: Strategies for spelling. annals of Dyslexia, 39; 268 278.

Treiman, R. and Cassar, M. (1996). Eff ects of morphology on children's spelling of nal clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology; 63, 1; 141 170.

Treiman, r., Berch, D., Tincof, R. and Weatherson, S. (1993). Phonology and spelling: the case of syllabic

consonants, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology; 56, 3; 267 290.


17/19

17

17

Treiman, R. Berch, D, and Weatherston, S. (1993). Children's use of grapheme phoneme correspondences: Roles of position and stress. Journal of Educa onal Psychology; 85, 3; 466 477.

Upward , C. (1992) . Is tradi onal English spelling ore diffi cult than German? Journal of Research in Reading; 15, 2; 82 94.

Verhoeven, L. and Gillijns, P. (1994) . Devilment of early reading and spelling abili es. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch; 19, 3; 259 279.

Zutell, J. and Allen, V. (1988). The English spelling strategies of Spanish speaking bilingual children. TESOL Quar le, 22, 2, 333 40.

van Bon , W. and Duighuisen, H. (1995). Some mes spelling is easier than phonemic segmenta on. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology; 36, 1; 82 94.

Van Houten, R. and Van Houten, J. (1991). the eff ects of breaking new spelling words into small segments on the spelling performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Educa on; 1, 4; 399 411.

Wa , J. and topping, K (1993). Cued spelling: A compara ve study of parent and peer

tutoring.Educational Psychology in Prac ce; 9, 2; 95 103.

Wislon, J, and Frederickson, N. (1995). Phonological awareness training: An evalua on. Educa onal and Child psychology; 12, 1; 68 79.

Wirtz, C.; Gardner, r.; weber, K.; Bullara, D. (1996). Using self correction to improve the spelling performance of low achieving third graders. Remedial and Special Educa on; 17, 1; 48 58.

Sahu and Jena (1986)

Studies

Huxford, Terrell, Bradley (1991). examined the relationship between the phonological

strategies employed in reading and spelling.

Upward (1992) reports on a study which examined misspellings made by college English

speakers writing in English and German .

Klein Doctor (1992) examined homography and polysemy as factors in bilingual word

recogni on of 32 English/ Afrikaans adult bilinguals.


18/19


19/19

19

19

Ensslen, S., von Benda, U. (1985) analyzed he spelling errors of children with dyslexia and

children without dyslexia.

Juel, C., Griffi th, P. and gough, P. (1986). studied the interrela on between word recogni on,

spelling, reading comprehension and wri ng skills of 80 children who passed from rst to

second grade.

Bookman, M. (1984) compared the spelling ability of learning disabled college students who

scored at the fifth grade level on the spelling subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test

Geva, e., Wade Woolley, L. and Shany, M. (1993). explored the hypothesis that differences

between first and second language reading and spelling profiles could be accounted for by lack

of pro ciency in the L2 of diff erences in orthographic complexity.

Verhoeven, L.

and

gillijns,

P.

(1994)

studied

the

differences in

the

speed

of

development

of

reading and

spelling abili es of 3,600 ethnic minority and majority third and fourth grade children in the

Netherlands.

Treiman, R. Berch, D, and Weatherston, S. (1993). inves gated whether rst grade children's

ability to use

phoneme grapheme correspondences in spelling is affected by the position of the phoneme in

the word or syllable and by the stress of the syllable.

Bruck, M. and Waters, G. (1990) inves gated the eff ect of reading skills on component spelling

skills of three groups of 6 graders.

Rohl and Pratt (1995) found that phonological awareness consistently predicted later

spelling and that phonological awareness was mostly related to spelling real words. MacDonald

and Cornwall (1995) found that phonological awareness ability was a signi cant predictor of

spelling skills of adolescents. Treiman and others (1993) found that phonology plays an

important role in early spelling. Rego and Bryant (1993) found that phonological skills aff ected

use

of

soundletter

relationships.

Goswami

(1992)

indicated

that

phonological

rather

than

visual skills that play the greater role in spelling development. Holligan and Johnston (1991)

found that poor spellers were impaired on the phonemic segmentation task. Poor and normal

spellers were indistinguishable in terms of the proportion of phonetic errors they made.

Documents

Auditory and Visual Problems of Good and Poor EFL College Spellers