# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
KS2 Moderation Handbook 2023 FINAL FOR PRINTING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
KS1 Moderation Handbook 2023 FINAL FOR PRINTING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Handout formal and informal features vfinal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Live modelling is such a powerful strategy to help disclose the deep disciplinary thinking that can so easily remain invisible to students. However, as with anything, it is also possible for it to go wrong or at least for it be used sub-optimally.

One way this can happen is if we don't focus enough on what the students are doing when we live model something. So often we become so immersed in what we're doing, trying to craft that perfect sentence whilst simultaneously verbalising how we're doing this, that we momentarily forget we have a class in front of us. Cognitive overload can just as easily impact teachers as it can students: it is difficult to live model, verbalise our thought process, and manage student activity all at the same time. If we fall into this trap student behaviour will likely default to one of two things: 1) copying down what you write word for word; 2) passively listening to what you're saying.

In both of these scenarios live modelling is happening, but students aren't likely to be engaged in the thinking that underpins the choices that are being made. So, we need to consider not only what we model, but, crucially, how we do it and even more crucially that this 'how' facilitates rigorous thinking. And we also need to be really explicit as to the expected means of participation so that students know what to do during this live modelling.

There are many ways to achieve this, but here is one strategy that I like and use a lot.

Rigour Hides in Margins

I use an extra wider margin (scruffily drawn in pen on my exercise book) a lot in my teaching. It is a great way to annotate what I'm modelling as I'm verbalising it, helping to slow myself down but also making my decisions more explicit. However, there is another use for this.

Before undertaking live modelling, I ask students to draw an extra wide margin on a couple of pages of their exercise book. I explain that this is a space for them to jot down anything they notice me do that they think is interesting, important or that they would like to try themselves in their next essay. This could be a turn of phrase I use, a structural choice, how I analyse language, an idea, and so on. In reality, what they note will be directed to some extent by the conversation that takes place as I model and the kinds of things I say as I explain the rationale behind my choices. However, nonetheless, I'm not explicitly saying 'write this down'. I might also, at this point, specify a specific aspect of the writing process I want them to focus on, ignoring or at least pushing to one side other aspects of what is happening. 'Today, I want us to focus on saying multiple things about the same image so pay really close attention to any time you see this'.

So, the live modelling begins. Students have their pens at the ready, listening and looking carefully for things I say and do that they might want to use. Already, then, this simple instruction (jot down in the margin what you like) has reframed the student role from passively observing to attentively seeking out things to adopt. But, we don't stop there. As I model, I pause and ask questions. Why do you think I did this? What could I talk about next do you think? Would it be a good idea if I...? Would it be a mistake for me to...? Would it be better or worse if I had done this instead...? What could make this better? Such questions are handled in the normal manner: maybe prefaced by paired discussion or very short bursts of writing (everyone write the next sentence). And then we go back to my live modelling and continue.

But, notice what is happening here. Students aren't simply watching or listening. They are alert to things to write in their margin. They are actively seeking such material out. And very importantly they are not simply copying out what you are writing. Rather, they are commenting in the space of their margin on what you are writing. Why does this distinction matter? If given nothing else to do students will copy. It's nice to have a copy and to know they can refer to this at a later date. But, the danger is that copying is not thinking. Focus is directed to the mechanics of copying (what does that word say? Slow down...Turn back a page...) and not to the thinking that governs what they are copying. But, it's the thinking we want to leverage and maximise. So, explicitly asking students not to copy but rather to pick out aspects of your model that they like as well as asking lots of questions is a big win.

Yet, we're still not finished. When we reach a natural pause point we stop our modelling. By this point, students would have accumulated various things in their margin based on what they've been hearing and watching. Now, it's time to do something with this material. As they've only been writing in their margin, the rest of the page will be blank. Now, we give them a different but similar question and ask them to have a go on their own, but we explain they can use their marginal annotations to help them. In jotting down features of your own response, they have effectively created a marginal scaffold strip in their exercise book to help them to write their own essay. It also works especially well because it will broadly follow the shape and sequence of your own essay, making it even easier to map these notes onto their own work. There's also a pleasing sense of ownership since, after all, these are the parts of your essay they liked and wanted to adopt and try. Well, now they can.

And so this process is comprised of two stages:
1. The teacher live modelling during which students are jotting down aspects of the process they wish to emulate alongside lots of pauses to ask questions

2. Students practising on their own, but using the marginal notes created during (1) to scaffold this attempt.

I've found this to be a great way to transition between teacher modelling and student practice, placing a high premium on student thinking and active engagement in the writing process.

Other Strategies

Whilst the above does work very well in my experience and achieves our stated aim of maximising student thinking during the modelling process, there are other ways to do this too. Here are just a couple:

1. Co-construction: This is perhaps the default strategy for ensuring student thinking during live modelling and for good reason. It has, broadly speaking, been popularised under the banner of 'You Do'. Here, students are involved in generating ideas and suggestions for the model response, which we can then incorporate. This works especially well when there is an emphasis placed on why students suggest what they do. Why that? Could you explain your thinking? It's also useful to ask for a range of suggestions and then to select the best one, explaining what makes it the best.

2. Marginal self-assessment: Another great use of the margin could be to set up a very clear success criteria prior to starting the modelling. As you then live model, you can marginally annotate your own response drawing attention to where exactly you are meeting the success criteria. You can then hand over to students for independent practice, but after they have done this you could ask them to mark up in their margin where and how they have met the established success criteria. This is a really simple but effective way to embed self assessment into writing.

3. Over to You: It can also work really well to intersperse modelling writing with opportunities for students to continue the writing. It could be you begin with an opening sentence and ask them to write the next chunk or that you begin a moment of analysis before then asking students to continue by further unpicking the image. This can work well if you use MWB, scanning the room to see how students developed whatever you had started, perhaps then selecting a couple to explore how they work well as next steps. This could be done at a really micro level (how might you finish this sentence) or a macro level (write the next paragraph).

Preparing Live Modelling

All of the above focuses on what students could be doing when we live model something, and in almost all scenarios we should be aiming to avoid passive observing (unless for very short bursts of writing) and blind copying. However, it doesn't touch on the preparation that goes on before we even enter the lesson. There is, I think, a tempting conflation between live modelling and spontaneous modelling, seeing live modelling as the teacher in the moment writing something. This is, after all, how it appears to students.

Yet, it is much better to plan exactly what you want to model before hand so that the quality of the model is as high as possible and you can pre-empt moments in which to pause and ask questions. We give the impression to students that it is being created in the moment, with us disclosing ostensibly spontaneous decisions, but in reality, at least broadly, we know what we plan to say. This also helps us to embed high-frequency mistakes into our model so that we can then demonstrate live how to overcome these mistakes, verbalising the metacognitive and strategic decisions we take when confronted with such a problem. And, of course, this helps to mitigate the very real teacher overload that can be produced by trying to model, verbalise and track students all at once.

In my own teaching, I tend to script (either full or in skeleton form) what I plan to write on one side of my modelling exercise book and then, in the lesson, use the other side of the double spread to model, using the first as a reference point. My planning page is conveniently hidden from the visualiser, maintaining the illusion, which I think is important, that the model is being created genuinely 'live'.

A Couple of Caveats

1. This post has in mind a specific variety of live modelling related to writing. Of course, live modelling, if we wish to give it that name, is something we do all the time every lesson. We model our thinking in discussion, in expressing our ideas, in approaching a poem as we explain how it makes us feel and why. We model behaviour. We model the disciplinary habits of thought that constitute the study of Literature. Most of this modelling is done in the moment of class interaction and is likely subconscious. We may not even think of it as modelling, although it is.

2. Not all live modelling needs to be pre-planned or orchestrated in the manner described in this post. There will be moments where we wish to pause the class because we have identified a misconception and model another way of doing whatever it might be. These are of course genuinely in the moment. Yet, still, most of the live modelling we do, especially if it is preemptive and intended, should be prepared in the manner described above in order to maximise its efficacy.

Making It Even More Concrete: From Planning to Classroom

So, let's try to make this even more classroom-specific. I decide I want to spend some or all of an upcoming lesson live modelling something, bearing in mind the above two caveats. What next?

The first thing to do is to decide what specifically I want to live model. Is it a specific skill like embedding quotations or saying multiple things about the same image? Perhaps, how to transition from one point to another in an essay? There should be an intended function to the session of live modelling beyond just 'I'd like to do some writing with my class'. Now, the function need not always be as granular as the above, it could be the act of extended writing is itself what you intend to model in which all the above could come into play. This will depend on class and identified needs.

So, once I have identified why I'm modelling with this class at this specific time I can focus on what I'm going to model and how. The 'what' will typically just be in relation to whatever text we are currently studying as the modelling should, where possible, grow out of and be anchored to the studied text just like the short bursts of writing that students would be doing or teaching sentence stems. But, I can go further and ask myself what exactly? This is where I'll typically pre-plan what I'm going to model. This pre-planning could be anything from a bullet point list of things I want to include that then scaffolds my own writing or something more extended. I also usually plan for errors so that I can model how to overcome them.

Next, I ask myself what will the students be thinking about and doing when I'm live modelling this? As this post has suggested, the answer to this question will very rarely be just listening or copying. Instead, I'll plan to do the marginal annotation and independent practice routine or focus more on co-construction. Or both as they are of course not mutually exclusive. Or, I'll plan for them to listen as I disclose (using the margin) how exactly I'm meeting an established success criteria, but then with the express intention they do their own immediately after me and also mark-up where they've meet the success criteria. Or maybe, I'll intend to start them off before transitioning into a longer period of them writing. The point, though, is I'm thinking carefully about what they will be doing: maximising my thinking maximises their thinking.

I'm now ready to go to the lesson. I'll take with me my modelling exercise book (with notes and plan appended to one side of a double sided spread), a visualiser and (probably) a set of MWB. These are great for co-constructing as it means I can seamlessly transition from me writing to them finishing off a sentence or continuing a point. I can then sample the class and pick out a couple to probe further before transitioning back to teacher modelling. Once the lesson begins I'll then make it really clear what we're doing and why as well as explaining what exactly students will be doing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live Modelling: Maximising Student Thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Live modelling is such a powerful strategy to help disclose the deep disciplinary thinking that can so easily remain invisible to students. However, as with anything, it is also possible for it to go wrong or at least for it be used sub-optimally. One way this can happen is if we don't focus enough on...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In No More: My Pupils Can't Edit, Felicity Ferguson & Ross Young invite schools and teachers to make proof-reading a rigorous and meaningful part of their class writing projects. Despite the fact that expectations for transcriptional accuracy have never been higher, schools and teachers often find it difficult to teach children to proof-read with precision and enthusiasm. This book looks to change that.

This practical guide offers an overview of The Writing For Pleasure Centre's approach, and provides a progression for proof-reading from the EYFS-KS2. It also contains over 50 exemplar lessons taken from their affiliate schools. These lessons cover the EYFS Framework and National Curriculum objectives efficiently and effectively.

What's special about this book is the way in which each lesson teaches children the whys of proof-reading procedures and illustrates how, as editors, they can use them for themselves. Children learn to make their writing 'reader-friendly' and 'reader-ready' prior to publication for real audiences.

£10.95 - Individual license

£50.75 - School/Institution license

or FREE for members

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More: 'My Pupils Can't Edit!' A Whole-School Approach To Developing Proof-Readers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PREVIEW In No More: My Pupils Can't Edit, Felicity Ferguson & Ross Young invite schools and teachers to make proof-reading a rigorous and meaningful part of their class writing projects. Despite the fact that expectations for transcriptional accuracy have never been higher, schools and teachers often find it difficult to teach children to proof-read with...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There has been a call from members in recent surveys for the UKLA to establish a Teachers' Writing Group. We are pleased to announce that one is now being established. The group guarantees to be a friendly, inclusive and supportive group and is open to anybody who works in education. It is particularly welcoming to anyone who wants to develop as a writer-teacher but for whatever reason feels nervous or unsure on how to start. The group will meet online once every half-term and is for all UKLA members.

The meetings will be in the evening and will last an hour and a half. They will follow a simple routine of: be together, write together and share together.
Be together
Meetings will start with an informal chat and the sharing of a writing prompt (for those who might like to use one). Alternatively, members can use the writing time as an opportunity to continue working on their own existing writing project. Finally, some members might want to use the time as an opportunity to participate in some free-writing or what we call 'dabbling'.
Write together
We will then have writing time. People can stay on the video call. They can turn off their camera and microphones, or they can leave their computer all together and write in a place that suits them best. A time will be given for when everyone should return to the meeting. If people want to write with others, we can set up breakout rooms.
Share together
Finally, the meeting will end with some sharing time. This is an opportunity for those who would like to talk about how their writing is coming along, seek advice from others, or simply read some of what they've been crafting. Members don't need to share if they don't want to.

Benefits of joining our group:

Meet other like-minded and sympathetic teachers.

Give yourself some time to write for pleasure.

Give yourself some accountability for working on your existing writing projects.

Learn some idea generation techniques.

An opportunity to craft mentor texts for your learners.

A chance to talk about the teaching of writing.

The group will be run by Ross Young and Felicity Ferguson who are the convenors of The UKLA's Teaching Writing SIG and the founders of The Writing For Pleasure Centre. If you're interested in joining, please contact them at: writing4pleasure.com/contact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There has been a call from members in recent surveys for the UKLA to establish a Teachers' Writing Group. We are pleased to announce that one is now being established. The group guarantees to be a friendly, inclusive and supportive group and is open to anybody who works in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the most common mistakes and prepare your manuscript for journal editors.

Learn more

Table 1 Examples of school districts or schools that have eliminated spelling tests and dropped traditional methods of explicit spelling instruction

Are Spelling Skills Still Important to Learn?

The Speller advised teachers to introduce the topic of spelling thusly: "Begin by pointing out the importance of spelling. Give cases if possible, where people have been discredited because of spelling errors in letters." (E. Horn & Ashbaugh, 1920, p. xi). That advice reflected a societal approbation of the ability to spell-which at the time could be defined as the capacity to write words that conform to the orthography of a given language-that had been pervasive since at least the 16th century and grew in importance with the rise of the printing press and printed books (Venesky, 1980; e.g., Coote, 1596; Webster, 1783). In the last decade, however, skepticism about the value of spelling skills, including from instructors, school administrators, commentators, and members of the general public, has become increasingly prevalent. Among claims used to justify such skepticism, three of the most common are: (a) incorrect spelling is no longer penalized on many standardized tests (Denn, 2019); (b) widely used technologies that automate the spelling process, such as spellcheck and autocorrect, reduce the need to be a good speller (Stewart, 2013); and (c) the proliferation of different ways to spell many frequently used words, as has occurred via text messaging, email, and other casual forms of communication, obviates the very concept of correct spelling (Trubek, 2012). Perhaps not coincidentally, the propagation of these claims coincides with the decline of spelling instruction in some schools.

The devaluation of spelling skills is exemplified in recent quotes published in education magazines and in the popular press. For instance, in a 2013 Times Educational Supplement interview, a professor of educational technology opined, "The emphasis on grammar and spelling, I find a bit unnecessary because they are skills that were essential maybe a hundred years ago but they are not right now," and moreover, "my phone corrects my spelling so I don't really need to think about it" (Stewart, 2013). Regarding job resumés, a Financial Times columnist claimed in 2014 that "typos and spelling mistakes don't really matter" except "only if I were trying to hire a proofreader" (Kellaway, 2014). An opinion piece in Wired magazine even asserted that "English spelling is a terrible mess anyway, full of arbitrary contrivances and exceptions that outnumber rules," and hence "it would be far better to loosen our idea of correct spelling" (Trubek, 2012; cf. Koerner, 2012).

Throughout much of the 20th century, such comments would likely have been met with skepticism and even horror (with the possible exception of complaints about the irregularity of English spelling, which Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, and others attempted to address). Among most contemporary reading and other literacy researchers, the importance of spelling remains undisputed. Recently, however, not only have comments expressing skepticism about the value of spelling received widespread circulation, but in many cases, those comments have gone completely unchallenged. In tandem with that attitudinal shift, the problem of subpar spelling skills remains fairly widespread: elementary school teachers still commonly report spelling difficulties among their students (e.g., 27% of students according to a national US survey conducted by Graham et al., 2008). Some instructors have also noted increases in error-prone and informal styles of writing among their students, particularly in emails (Epstein, 2006; Flaherty, 2019; Glater, 2006). That trend is partially substantiated by corpus data: Constantinou et al. ( 2020) and Constantinou and Chambers ( 2020) found evidence of decreasing formality in writing style (e.g., inconsistent tense use) and a greater use of non-standard English (e.g., lack of subject-verb agreement) in UK student writing samples collected in 2014 versus 2004. The increased use of electronic methods of communication wherein correct spelling and formal writing style are not required may also be a factor: survey data indicate a shift toward informal writing styles among US teenagers (Lenhart et al., 2008), although such shifts have not yet supplanted traditional approaches to writing (Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008). In an effort to forestall a further deterioration of writing standards, some institutions have recently developed "netiquette" guidelines with reminders to use proper grammar and correct spelling in electronic communication (e.g., Arizona State University, 2020; Bestler, 2015; Oregon Institute of Technology, 2018).

Psychological Appraisals and Consequences of Spelling Errors

Contrary to the assertions of skeptics, an examination of research on how human beings view spelling errors suggests that the longstanding approbation of spelling skills remains justified. First, consider the employment sector: In industries ranging from accounting to technology services, spelling and other writing skills are frequently used and prized by recruiters (e.g., Christensen & Rees, 2002; Martin-Lacroux and Lacroux, 2017; see also National Commission on Writing, 2004, 2005). Spelling skills may also be considered in promotion decisions. Accordingly, the presence of spelling errors in resumés and other application materials, which are often quickly scanned during an initial screening stage, can be devastating: In a survey conducted by human resources firm Adecco ( 2013), 43% of recruiters listed spelling errors as sufficient grounds for immediate rejection. Additionally, in experiments wherein professional recruiters rated application forms, the presence of spelling errors significantly damaged applicants' chances at being shortlisted (e.g., Martin-Lacroux and Lacroux, 2017). Spelling errors can also substantially worsen recruiters' impressions of a candidate's professional capabilities (Martin-Lacroux, 2017), including assessments of their level of attention to detail and concern about the quality of their writing (Barker & Puente, 2013). Thus, contrary to claims that spelling skills are rarely considered in the workplace and/or should be regarded as unimportant (Kellaway, 2014), data on hiring and promotion practices suggest that such skills remain valuable.

Spelling errors can also be costly for companies and organizations. If a potential customer notices even one spelling error in an advertisement, for example, then their interest in the advertised business drops (Mozafari et al., 2019). If an online review contains spelling errors, then readers form a less positive impression of the company being reviewed; although the review is, also regarded as less credible (Cooper et al., 2020). Spelling errors on commercial websites can negatively impact sales and consumer attitudes (Everard & Galletta, 2005; Stiff, 2012), with up to half of sales lost because customers doubt the credibility of incorrectly spelled information ((according to some estimates; e.g., Coughlan, 2011). Relatedly, security experts commonly advise treating websites and emails with spelling errors as potentially fraudulent (e.g., Consumer Reports, 2012). Companies and other organizations have a vested interest, therefore, in prioritizing correct spelling in customer interactions and in promotions of products or services that they make or market.

More broadly, spelling errors often negatively impact the perception of writers and their writing. In fact, Varnhagen ( 2000) found that even 2nd, 4th, and 6th grade students gave lower quality ratings and rated writers more poorly after reading a story that contained spelling errors, as opposed to a story that contained no such errors. Negative ratings increased with both age and grade, suggesting that correct spelling is increasingly valued as individuals mature. Kreiner et al. ( 2002) found that the presence of spelling errors caused adults to give lower ratings of authors' writing abilities, and in some cases, lower ratings of authors' intellectual ability as well. Further, when told that a writer had access to spellcheck software, readers were still more likely to blame the writer than spellcheck for any spelling errors (Figueredo & Varnhagen, 2005). Hence, the responsibility for producing error-free text remains with the writer. Spelling also matters online: In web forum discussions, misspelled posts are more likely to be questioned than are correctly spelled posts, with such errors also thought to decrease the credibility of the author (Jeong et al., 2017; see also Liu, 2004; Morris et al., 2012). These findings all suggest that correct spelling confers a "halo effect"-that is, beyond simply aiding a writer's ability to communicate effectively, a lack of spelling errors can improve perceptions of their credibility and qualifications-and, conversely, the presence of such errors can lower such perceptions.

Among educational assessments, the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) and other major standardized tests do not assess spelling or penalize spelling errors. Hence, spelling is arguably unimportant when taking such tests. However, the current US Common Core State Standards feature specific spelling benchmarks starting at grade 3 (Gentry, 2013; Reed, 2012), thus giving schools cause to evaluate spelling skills, and some states have added penalties in their standardized tests for incorrect spelling (e.g., the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test began doing so in 2012). Moreover, 11-year old students in the UK are required to take the Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar (SPaG) test (Department of Education, 2013). Thus, despite a lack of spelling assessments in some school districts and on some standardized tests (which complicates efforts to systematically track spelling ability over time), spelling still matters in various educational settings where it is directly evaluated.

Spelling Skills in the Era of Spellcheck, Autocorrect, and Text Messaging

Although spelling errors have historically ranked at or near the top of lists of the most common mistakes that writers make (Johnson, 1917, Hodges, 1941), the advent of spellcheck software, which highlight spelling errors and can suggest correctly spelled replacements, and autocorrect or autocomplete software, which attempts to automatically replace misspellings with correctly spelled words, appears to have changed the nature of those errors. Connors and Lunsford ( 1988) analyzed over 3000 student papers from across the USA and reported that the most common type of mistake-exceeding all others by approximately 300%-involved incorrectly spelled words. That result was consistent with findings stretching back many decades. Two decades later, however, a follow-up study by Lunsford and Lunsford ( 2008) found that the overall rate of writing errors (of all types) had not substantially changed (i.e., 2.45 errors per 100 words in 2008, versus 2.26 and 2.11 errors per 100 words in 1988 and 1917, respectively), but the prevalence of incorrectly spelled words had fallen to 5th place among all error types. In its place, the most common error was one that spellcheck does not typically catch-namely, correctly spelled, but incorrect, words (e.g., homonyms such as brake in place of break). These errors comprised nearly 14% of all mistakes and occurred not only when writers depend solely on spellcheck (that is, without performing additional manual checks), but also when writers select correctly spelled but inappropriate words from the options provided by spellcheck (relatedly, a corpus analysis by Mitton ( 1987) found that over one-quarter of students' spelling errors consisted of otherwise correctly spelled, but inappropriate, words). These findings reveal that spellcheck and autocorrect, though clearly capable of eliminating typos and other obvious spelling errors, are not foolproof. Further, in some studies, the upper bound of spellcheck efficacy has been about 80% (e.g., MacArthur et al., 1996; see also McNaughton et al., 1994; Montgomery et al., 2001), thus leaving it up to the writer to address the remaining 20% of spelling errors.

Lunsford and Lunsford's ( 2008) study also highlighted several other error types that software-based writing aids commonly miss and can even exacerbate, including the incorrect use of proper nouns, the incorrect capitalization of words (possibly due to auto-capitalization functions), and errors in punctuation, apostrophes, dashes, and quotation marks. It is also important to note that in cases of extreme misspellings, spellcheck and autocorrect may be unable to identify the intended word. Thus, although the widespread use of software-based writing aids has indeed reduced the rate of obvious misspellings and other types of mistakes, those aids do not guarantee appreciably better writing. Rather, writers now need to not only attend to the errors that those aids do not catch, but also to the unique types of errors that such aids may generate. A heavy reliance on spellcheck software may even lull writers into a false sense of security, resulting in less vigilance to errors (e.g., Galletta et al. 2005). Although improved programs that integrate contextual data, voice recognition, or machine learning (Greer et al., 2016) promise to attain better accuracy in the not-too-distant future, and the use of some types of spellcheck software might even lead to incidental learning of spelling skills (e.g., Lin et al., 2017), the research currently available indicates that suggestions to relegate the responsibility for correct spelling entirely to software-based writing aids are misguided.

The widespread use of text messaging, email, and other forms of social media (e.g., Twitter) has also resulted in a growing array of textisms-that is, abbreviations, acronyms, pneumonic devices, and other words that are commonly used in text messages, tweets, and informal emails (e.g., IMHO, plz)-entering into the mainstream vernacular. This trend has led some observers to worry that new modes of communication are causing spelling skills to deteriorate (for discussion, see Kemp et al., 2014). Others have even proposed reconceptualizing the importance of correct spelling to accommodate the diversity of textisms and other neologisms (e.g., Trubek, 2012). However, the emerging research literature on text messaging and spelling suggests that fears about negative impacts on spelling ability are, thus far, largely overstated. Drouin and Davis ( 2009), Kemp ( 2010), and Massengill Shaw et al. ( 2007) found that the use of textisms was not predictive of spelling ability in adults; similarly, Plester et al. ( 2009) found no significant association of textism use with spelling ability in elementary school children. Further, Drouin ( 2011) and De Jonge and Kemp ( 2012) reported positive and negative correlations, respectively, between the frequency of text messaging use and spelling ability in adults. Overall, these studies suggest that there is not a consistently negative influence of textisms on spelling skills.

In addition, it appears that most writers generally limit their use of textisms to more casual forms of writing. Lunsford and Lunsford ( 2008) found no indication of textisms slipping into formal prose in student writing samples, although textisms occasionally appeared in notes or in comments. Similarly, Rosen et al. ( 2010) found that young adults commonly report using approximately 8 to 10 textisms daily in their text messages, but when tasked with writing both formal and informal essays, the vast majority do not use any textisms (see also Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008). In a nationwide US survey (Lenhart et al., 2008), however, over 25% of teenagers admitted to incorporating textisms into their school writing. Overall, it appears that the increased use of new modes of communication and the proliferation of textisms and other casual orthographic forms, while having some influences on writing behavior, have not (as of yet) materially reduced adherence to conventional spelling. Moreover, despite some indications that writing is becoming less formal (e.g., Constantinou et al., 2020; Constantinou & Chambers, 2020; Lenhart et al., 2008), the existence of standard, universally-agreed upon spellings remains a cultural norm that, in the service of clarity, is generally expected in most writing and may be even more important in the digital era (Koerner, 2012). That expectation remains the case for traditional written communications (e.g., corporate and other official correspondence), and now also applies in various online venues (e.g., news websites, blog posts, and e-mails).

Evidence of Links Between Spelling, Reading, and Writing Skills

Research on links between spelling, reading, and writing skills provides further insights into the importance of spelling skills, although conflicting evidence complicates interpretation.1 First consider reading. Misspellings can make text more difficult to read (e.g., Oelke et al., 2012), whereas improvements in spelling ability are associated with enhanced reading skills (for discussion, see Moats, 2005/2006). A recent meta-analysis of 20 experimental and quasi-experimental K-12 classroom studies (Graham & Santangelo, 2014; see also Graham & Hebert, 2010) comparing spelling instruction against no instruction or other learning interventions that did not focus directly on spelling (e.g., Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Ouellette et al., 2013; Rieben et al., 2005) found that spelling instruction was associated with improved reading skills. However, the conclusions of the meta-analytic literature on spelling-focused instruction and reading skills have recently been criticized on methodological and interpretative grounds (for discussion, see Bowers, 2020; Fletcher et al., 2020), which heightens the need for more research to verify the efficacy of such instructional methods. Moderate-to-high correlations of r = 0.5-0.9 between spelling and reading test scores have also been observed across multiple studies (e.g., Ehri, 1987; Townsend, 1947; for discussions see Graham et al., 2002; Rayner et al., 2001; Shankweiler & Lundquist, 1992), indicating potential links between the two skill domains, but a causal relationship cannot be inferred from such data. It is also more common for skilled readers to be poor spellers than for poor readers to be highly proficient spellers (Bosman & Van Orden, 1997; Frith, 1978), which implies an asymmetrical relationship between spelling and reading. Overall, there are some indications that spelling skills can impact reading ability, but the precise nature of such impacts and the extent to which instruction in spelling impacts reading ability remain to be fully established.

With respect to writing, poor spelling ability has been hypothesized to impair the composition process by taxing cognitive resources and interfering with higher order skills that are needed to produce well-written prose (Graham, 1999). Accordingly, if students have difficulties with spelling, they may then be impaired in developing broader writing skills (Graham et al., 2002). A recent meta-analysis of six empirical studies of the effects of spelling instruction on writing ability (e.g., Berninger et al., 2002; Graham & Harris, 2005; Sussman, 1998), however, found that such instruction yielded modest but not statistically significant improvements (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). Thus, although spelling skills may impact writing ability, evidence for knock-on effects of spelling instruction on writing skills is not strong (even before taking into account the aforementioned methodological criticisms of such meta-analytic data). Additionally, as with spelling and reading skills, moderate-sized positive correlations between spelling and writing skills of r = 0.4-0.5 have been observed (e.g., Graham et al., 1997; Graham, 2000; see also Abbott et al., 2010; Puranik & AlOtaiba, 2012; Rankin et al., 1993), but again, those correlations do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship. In summary, although there are indications that spelling skills can influence reading and possibly writing skills, the extent of that influence needs further investigation (see also Graham, 2000).

Overall, an abundance of research confirms that spelling remains important in the 21st century. As summarized in Table 2, that importance stems not just from the potential influence of spelling skills on reading and writing skills, but also from the vital role of spelling in securing employment, in business, and in affecting the perception of writers and their writing. Despite sociocultural, technological, and some attitudinal changes, those characteristics of spelling have not changed substantially in recent years. Moreover, technological innovations have not eliminated the need to learn to spell, nor-outside of texting and other casual modes of communication-have they irrevocably changed the way that words are spelled. Based on these findings, the recent trend towards abandoning or minimizing spelling instruction, which has alarmed some researchers, parents, and observers (e.g., Barker & Puente, 2013; Gentry, 2011, 2017; Petersen, 2010; Spellbound, 2009), appears to be misguided.

Should Spelling Skills Still Be Taught?

Given that spelling skills evidently remain important, the question follows: Should spelling still be taught in schools? That is, should class time still be devoted to spelling instruction, perhaps including the memorization of difficult words, learning spelling rules, charting the etymology of words, or other spelling-focused activities? Historically, elementary school teachers have devoted substantial amounts of class time to spelling. For instance, Graham's (2008; see also Fresch, 2007; Hillerich, 1982) nationwide survey of spelling instructional practices in US elementary schools found that instructors spend an average of almost 90 min per week on the subject (which, incidentally, exceeds the 15 min daily amount that has long been recommended in the spelling literature, e.g., E. Horn, 1919; Rice, 1897). Devoting instructional time to spelling might seem sensible given that English is one of the world's most irregularly spelled languages (Vangelova, 2015). In contrast with other alphabetic languages, such as Italian and Finnish, wherein each letter represents just one sound, the 26 letters of the English alphabet can be used to represent 44 different sounds and create over several hundred letter combinations (Gentry, 2010). Moreover, learners typically need to master 6000-12,000 words to write effectively in English (Graham, 2000; Hanna et al., 1966). As discussed next, however, it is no longer the case that all elementary school teachers devote instructional time specifically to the subject of spelling.

Explicit Versus Incidental Spelling Instruction

Currently, elementary school teachers commonly use either of two primary approaches to teaching spelling (Graham, 1983, 2008): (a) explicit instruction (also known as the spelling-is-taught, formal, or systematic approach), wherein some portion of instructional time is focused specifically on spelling, or (b) incidental instruction (also known as the spelling-is-caught, informal, or naturalistic approach), wherein little-to-no instructional time is specifically used and spelling is instead learned via reading and writing activities (and in some situations, correct spellings are modeled by the instructor and/or discussed in the context of "teachable moments" that arise during those activities; for discussion, see Edelsky, 1990). From an instructor's standpoint, explicit instruction typically entails pre-planned instructional activities wherein spelling is the sole focus (e.g., word study exercises using weekly assigned spelling lists), whereas implicit instruction might involve inserting spelling words into lessons involving other topics (e.g., history and science) and discussing those words in the context of those lessons (for further discussion of different instantiations of the two approaches, see Treiman & Kessler, 2014).2 Importantly, there are a wide variety of ways in which the explicit and incidental approaches could be implemented (some of which are discussed later in this article). In yet other cases, a combination of the two approaches is used: for instance, when several elementary schools in Lee County, Florida, overhauled their spelling curriculum to eliminate traditional methods, including all spelling tests, school officials suggested that the learning of spelling would be woven throughout all academic subjects, including science and social science units, via a mix of explicit and incidental methods (Fry, 2015).

The explicit approach has been, for more than four centuries, the most common way that spelling is taught. It dates at least as far back as the publication of the first known spelling textbook (Coote, 1596). The incidental approach has existed for well over a century and gained popularity during the 1970s when prominent psycholinguists (e.g., Chomsky, 1971; Zutell, 1978) interpreted the finding that children's "invented spellings" (i.e., incorrectly spelled words that they come up with on their own) eventually give way to more accurate spellings as an indicator that human beings have an innate capacity for developing spelling skills on their own (Read, 1971; see also Chomsky, 1971), including via statistical learning (Treiman & Kessler, 2014). The incidental approach also addressed some instructors' concerns that traditional spelling instruction is too "siloed" (that is, disconnected from reading and writing activities), which has been a recurring theme in anecdotal reports (e.g., Gill & Scharer, 1996). Proponents and detractors of both approaches have debated their relative merits for many decades (Woo, 1997). Since the 1970s, however, there has been a noticeable trend towards dropping explicit instruction in favor of incidental instruction, particularly in some US school districts (see Table 1), and that trend appears to have accelerated in recent years (e.g., Barker & Puente, 2013; Fresch, 2007, Gentry, 2010; Mellon, 2009; Murray, 2015; Schlagal and Schlagal, 1992; Shalash, 2011).

The Case for Explicit Spelling Instruction

Graham ( 2000) conducted an in-depth review of the research literature addressing explicit versus incidental spelling instruction. Differences across studies in experimental design, outcome assessment, and control for confounding variables complicated interpretation. There was also insufficient evidence to thoroughly evaluate the merits of either approach. Nevertheless, the tentative conclusion was that explicit instruction should not be replaced with incidental methods. Evidence favoring explicit instruction included: (a) reading can yield some incidental learning of spelling, but such learning is modest compared with explicit instruction, and (b) writing yields modest and inconsistent improvements in spelling ability. It was concluded that the incidental instruction should at most supplement explicit instruction (Graham, 2000).

More recent reviews of the literature have also affirmed the efficacy of explicit spelling instruction (e.g., Joshi et al., 2008; Schlagal, 2002; Treiman, 2018). For instance, Graham and Santangelo ( 2014) meta-analyzed 23 studies that directly compared the explicit and incidental approaches, including studies that were not available for earlier reviews; explicit instruction was reported to increase spelling skills relative to incidental instruction by an effect size of Hedges' g = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.25, 0.60]. Further, explicit instruction was reported to enhance spelling skills over no instruction by g = 0.54, 95% CI [0.39, 0.70], and it was observed that additional explicit instruction led to greater improvements in spelling skills (for related meta-analytic findings involving students with learning difficulties, see Galuschka et al., 2020).

Advantages of explicit spelling instruction have also been observed in authentic educational settings. In 1987, the California Board of Education directed all public schools in the state to switch from explicit to incidental or "literature-based" instruction (Woo, 1997; see also Krashen, 2002). Motivated by the increasing popularity of "holistic" approaches to literacy, that switch served as an early test case for the efficacy of the incidental approach (Gentry & Graham, 2010). Spelling disappeared from required textbook lists and schools switched to addressing the subject via reading and writing activities (Woo, 1997). By the early 1990s, the switch to incidental instruction had been widely blamed for a statewide drop in student reading scores (Colvin, 1995; although for an alternative interpretation, see Krashen, 2002), and reports of incorrectly spelled student letters and essays-including a publicized case wherein over two dozen 8th grade students in Middletown, California, produced nearly as many incorrect spellings of the word "vandal" in letters sent to a local newspaper-led to a public outcry (Woo, 1997). Subsequently, state officials backtracked, endorsing a back-to-basics approach and the restoration of explicit spelling instruction (a practice that some teachers, frustrated with an approach that they believed was ineffective, had already begun to implement independently). The California state legislature codified that recommendation into law in 1996 (Gentry & Graham, 2010; Woo, 1997). Afterwards, scores on the spelling portion of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9) exhibited incremental year-on-year gains at every assessed grade level, increasing from an average percentile rank of 36-42% in 1998 to 41-55% by 2002 (California Department of Education, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002).

Test cases such as the apparent failure of the incidental approach in California reinforce the conclusion that incidental instruction/learning results in poorer spelling skills than does explicit instruction. With school districts in other US states recently making the same switch to incidental instruction that California once attempted, it appears that history is on the verge of repeating itself. Another potential problem with incidental instruction is that assessments for spelling ability are often dropped with that approach, making the efficacy of such instruction difficult to assess and track (Denn, 2019).

In 1919, the Speller's first author proposed as a first principle of effective spelling instruction, "Do not depend solely on the incidental teaching of spelling" (E. Horn, 1919, p. 53). In support of that principle, it was argued that any class time that might be saved via incidental instruction would not translate to improved spelling skills, and that even carefully planned methods of supposedly incidental instruction, as opposed to a haphazard but more genuinely incidental approach, would still be less effective than explicit instruction. A century later, that principle appears to have been proven correct. Ultimately, the advantage of explicit over incidental instruction may stem from the fact that it enables teachers to ensure that their students receive training that actually builds spelling proficiency, rather than waiting for, or attempting to engineer, teachable moments.

Are Traditional Approaches to Spelling Instruction Still Valid?

Given the evidence that spelling should be explicitly taught, at least in part, the question follows: What methods of spelling instruction are the most effective? That question has occupied researchers since at least the late 19th century, when Joseph Mayer Rice published the first scientific investigations on the topic (Rice, 1897; see also Mann, 1839), and has given rise to one of the most extensive research literatures in all of the language arts (Allred, 1977).3 Although a comprehensive treatment of that research is beyond the scope of this article, a comparison of spelling research and recommendations from the early-to-mid 20th century with more recent developments reveals four important patterns: (a) shifting views about optimal methods of explicit spelling instruction, (b) changes in the definition of spelling skills, (c) discrepancies between research-based recommendations and common educational practices, and (d) recent debates pertaining to the use of spelling tests. Using the Speller as an example of a traditionally popular approach to spelling instruction, those patterns are discussed next.

Revisiting the Horn-Ashbaugh Speller

In 1920, the Speller espoused a curriculum wherein spelling was learned on a daily basis using lists assigned weekly. That approach drew from the available spelling literature and empirical research conducted by the first author (key findings of which had been summarized in a book chapter (E. Horn, 1919) published a year prior). As detailed in Table 3, the Speller had teachers introduce a word list every Monday and then administer a pretest on that list. On Tuesday, students studied and practiced the words that they had missed on the pretest. A diagnostic test on Wednesday measured the progress that had been made, and after students engaged in additional practice on Thursday, another diagnostic test occurred on Friday. That cycle repeated each week with a new word list. Throughout, students were expected to keep a notebook wherein they documented their progress, wrote down challenging spelling words, and described any spelling difficulties that they had experienced in their own writing activities. That notebook bears resemblance to those still used in some primary schools for math and other subjects (e.g., Numeracy Ninjas, 2015) and was intended to foster the development of a "spelling conscience" (i.e., a sense of responsibility for correct spelling), pride in one's spelling ability, and improved motivation to become a better speller (E. Horn & Ashbaugh, 1920; see also Hillerich, 1982).

Besides introducing a new word list each week, the Speller also called for the periodic review of previously learned spelling words. On each Wednesday and Friday test, not only were the words from that week's list assessed, but the words from a list that had been assigned 1 month before were assessed as well. Students were supposed to include any of those "older" words that they had missed on such tests in their practice activities. Additionally, difficult words were to be reviewed at the start of each school year. A contemporary view of these activities is that they constituted implementations of distributed practice-that is, learning across multiple sessions spread apart in time (it should also be noted that the Monday-Wednesday-Friday pretesting and posttesting schedule could be classified as another instantiation of distributed practice). The benefit of distributed practice for learning, which is also known as the spacing effect, is now considered to be one of the most robust of all learning phenomena (for a review, see Cepeda et al., 2006; for related discussions, see Ebbinghaus, 1885; Treiman & Kessler, 2014). Distributed or "spaced" practice can improve students' ability to remember information and apply skills across a wide range of conditions (e.g., Bahrick et al., 1993; Rohrer, 2015). Hence, the Speller was arguably a pioneer, or at least an early adopter, of one of the most potent learning techniques.

In addition to thrice-weekly diagnostic tests, the Speller had students use practice testing to learn spelling. Specifically, after studying a word and attempting to visualize it, students were directed to cover it, attempt to write it from memory, and then check for correctness (Table 3). That process, which was to be repeated three times per word, reflected Horn's belief that testing with corrective feedback constitutes the "most fruitful single learning activity (per unit of time) that has yet been devised" (E. Horn, 1954, pp. 17-18). That assertion has since been supported by various research findings over several decades. In fact, it is now well-established among cognitive and educational psychologists that low-stakes practice testing, or retrieval practice, can serve as a more potent "memory modifier" than non-retrieval studying (Bjork, 1975), yielding pedagogical benefits in classroom settings (e.g., Agarwal et al., 2014; Pan, Cooke, et al., 2019) and across a wide range of materials (i.e., the testing effect; for reviews, see Pan & Rickard, 2018; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b; Rowland, 2014), including spelling (e.g., Beseler, 1953; Christine & Hollingsworth, 1966; Cook, 1957; Cohen, 1969; Jones et al., 2016; Louis, 1950; Pan et al., 2015; Schoephoerster, 1962). Thus, in recommending practice testing, the Speller incorporated a second learning technique that is now widely regarded as highly potent (Dunlosky et al., 2013; Pashler et al., 2007). Later, spelling researchers have also endorsed similar testing procedures, including the self-corrected test and study-copy-cover-compare methods (e.g., Allred, 1966; Fitzgerald, 1951; Gentry, 2004; Gilstrap, 1962; Mazzio, 1987; Reed, 2012; Wallace, 2006; Westerman, 1971).

Overall, the Speller exemplified an approach to explicit spelling instruction that reflected early 20th century educators' belief in the central importance of spelling skills and required students to invest time on the subject on a daily basis. It was remarkably prescient in its use of two learning techniques ( distributed practice and retrieval practice) that are now regarded as evidence-based and highly robust. However, as described next, other aspects of the Speller have since come under heavy criticism, and as a consequence, the textbook is now generally considered to be obsolete.

Contemporary Criticisms of the Speller and Other Traditional Approaches

The Speller's curriculum was largely rooted in behaviorist principles and perspectives, much of which are now commonly regarded as outdated (Hodges, 1982). For instance, the Speller's first author had argued that the acquisition of spelling skills should be regarded as a visual learning task (E. Horn, 1919), which was in alignment with common perspectives at the time (e.g., Gates & Chase, 1926). Although contemporary researchers still recognize that there are visual components to spelling skills, non-visual components have since been established to be involved as well (Gentry, 2004; Rayner et al., 2001; Zesiger & de Partz, 1997). Accordingly, the Speller 's heavy reliance on visualization exercises, which reflected a goal of engaging students in repeated "drill periods" to impress words in memory, was based on an incomplete view of the cognitive mechanisms that spelling engages.

In addition, the Speller's authors did not anticipate many other research-supported techniques that have since gained wide acceptance. E. Horn ( 1919, 1954) had criticized the study of spelling rules and letter patterns as ineffective due to the apparent irregularity of English spelling, plus dismissed the utility of phonics instruction on the basis of inadequate evidence. Hence, the Speller included no such activities. Yet, many spelling researchers now endorse the study of spelling rules, letter patterns, and phonics given empirical research that such activities are beneficial (e.g., Gentry, 2007; Joshi et al., 2008; Reed, 2012; Treiman, 2018). Moreover, the Speller did not include age-specific or grade-level spelling skill benchmarks (e.g., successful use of consonant doubling). The absence of such benchmarks is unsurprising given that most research on the developmental progression of spelling ability-which led to stage models of spelling by Gentry ( 1982), Henderson ( 1985), Ehri ( 1986), Bear and Templeton ( 1998), and others-had not yet occurred. Consequently, the Speller did not allow for diagnosing individual students' spelling skills in any systematic way, such as via categorization of the types of errors committed. Rather, progression of spelling ability was simply reflected in terms of "easier" versus "more difficult" words, with levels of difficulty established via frequency counts of errors from an analysis of letters of correspondence that the Speller 's authors had conducted (it should however be noted that the use of difficulty-graded lists represents an improvement over more arbitrary lists, which is a practice that persists even today in some schools).

Two staples of the Speller's curriculum, namely weekly spelling lists and the Friday spelling test, remain popular today. Fresch ( 2007) surveyed US elementary school teachers and found that 84% assign their students to learn a different word list each week in preparation for a posttest (for additional survey data see Graham et al., 2008; McNeill & Kirk, 2014). Yet, it appears that many teachers no longer emphasize distributed practice or practice testing. Rather, students are commonly told to study each word list on their own in preparation for a single, end-of-week posttest (Simonsen & Gunter, 2001), after which the words are no longer revisited. In place of practice testing, non-testing activities such as consulting dictionaries or playing games occur (Fresch, 2007; Graham et al., 2008). Kilzer ( 1926) and other researchers have described that approach-wherein spelling is learned through the study of assigned lists and no testing occurs outside of a final posttest-as the study-test method. Although Sherwin ( 1969) and others have long suggested (based on empirical data) that the study-test method is inadequate relative to methods that involve practice testing, it remains popular. That popularity appears to stem from ease-of-implementation: At a bare minimum, all the instructor has to do is assign a list on Monday and proctor a test on Friday, with students otherwise left to learn via their own devices.

In a potentially worrisome development, dissatisfaction with traditional approaches to spelling instruction appears to have been growing among teachers, at least anecdotally, since the 1970s. Chief among such complaints has been the observation that the weekly list-test format appears to yield rapid forgetting and poor transfer of learning. The phrase "Friday test, Monday miss" (Putman, 2017; see also Gill & Scharer, 1996)-wherein students study sufficiently to pass a Friday test, but then appear to have forgotten what they have learned as evidenced by misspellings in later writing activities-encapsulates that phenomenon. It should be emphasized, however, that forgetting is ubiquitous throughout many forms of learning and can occur regardless of the training task (and as emphasized in prominent memory theories, including Bjork and Bjork's ( 1992) New Theory of Disuse, learning can be retained but appear to be inaccessible, if only temporarily). Further, some tasks have been shown to not only boost learning relative to other study activities, but also reduce the rate of forgetting (as in the case of retrieval practice; see Carpenter et al., 2008; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). Other complaints target explicit instruction (e.g., the aforementioned claim that the explicit approach results in learning that is too disconnected from reading and writing activities).

Psycholinguists have also faulted traditional approaches to spelling instruction as ineffective at yielding transferrable spelling skills and fostering motivation to spell. For instance, Zutell ( 1978, p. 848) opined that the weekly spelling list-test format provides "little opportunity for conceptualization," constitutes "rote memorization," and ultimately yields "boredom or frustration" and "a lack of carryover from memorizing the words to using them in written products." Although such complaints most directly reflect the study-test method and not the Speller 's more intensive curriculum-and appear to partly stem from a combination of opinions on teaching philosophy and anecdotal evidence-the apparent result of these and other complaints has been, over the past several decades, a growing interest in replacing traditional approaches to spelling instruction with updated versions.

Alternative Perspectives on Effective Spelling Instruction

In contrast with the perspectives held by the authors of the Speller and many others of the same era, many contemporary spelling researchers do not believe that the relative difficulty of English spelling compared with other alphabetic languages necessitates "word-by-word memorization." Supporting evidence for that belief comes from studies showing that most English words have more predictable spellings than previously assumed. In particular, Hanna et al. ( 1966, see also Hanna and Moore, 1953, Treiman and Kessler, 2003, Kreiner et al., 2002, Ziegler et al., 1997) conducted a series of computer analyses of over 17,000 English words and found that approximately half could be spelled using simple sound-letter combinations (i.e., phonics), over one-third were regular except for one sound, and most of the remainder could be derived using etymological information (e.g., having a prefix of Greek origin). After those considerations had been accounted for, only 4% of English spellings could be regarded as unpredictable (Joshi et al., 2008). That finding led to suggestions that spelling instruction should concentrate on the regularities of English spelling (e.g., Bowers & Bowers, 2017; Moats, 2005/2006; Treiman, 2018), or at least that spelling curricula should be modified to include some instruction on those regularities (e.g., Gentry & Graham, 2010). Such instruction might take many different forms. For instance, Joshi et al. ( 2008) suggested that spelling instruction should focus on the study of (a) syllable patterns (i.e., open and closed syllables and rules governing their use), (b) morphemes (e.g., prefixes, suffixes, and roots), (c) letter patterns (i.e., rules governing the use of certain letter combinations, such as the letter q always being followed by the letter u), and especially for older elementary school students, (d) etymology (including words of Greek, Latin, and French origin). Other researchers (e.g., Adoniou, 2014; Leipzig, 2000; Moats 2005/2006; Treiman & Kessler, 2014) have proposed similar curricula and offered recommendations for effective spelling instruction, including the mixing of explicit and incidental approaches, motivating students to engage in concentrated effort when practicing spelling, and providing students with feedback.

Contemporary researchers have also adopted more expansive and detailed definitions of spelling skills. Specifically, spelling skills no longer simply entail the ability to spell correctly; rather, such skills now include phonological knowledge (i.e., phonemics and phonics), morphological knowledge (e.g., prefixes and suffixes), orthographic knowledge (e.g., phoneme-grapheme relationships), etymological knowledge (i.e., word origins), and visual knowledge (e.g., how letter patterns appear to the eye), many or all of which may develop in stages (Adoniou, 2014; Bear & Templeton, 1998; Gentry, 1982; and Henderson, 1985; for detailed discussion of the development of alphabetic knowledge and spelling ability, see Treiman & Kessler, 2014). Further, the ability to use a dictionary to check the spellings of words (Graham, 1985; Hillerich, 1982), use spellcheck programs (Montgomery et al., 2001), spell unfamiliar words, and learn the spellings of unfamiliar words found in written text also constitute important spelling skills. In tandem with those definitional changes, the number of ways to learn spelling has also grown (Johnston, 2000; Schlagal, 2002) and now includes a wide range of commercial spelling programs, spelling textbooks, and a variety of ad hoc techniques invented by teachers and others.

From a contemporary perspective, explicit spelling instruction might involve any of at least three different but non-exclusive approaches, each of which might be implemented in diverse ways (Reed, 2012; Simonsen & Gunter, 2001). As shown in Table 4, the most common include the (a) phonemic and (b) morphemic approaches, which focus on the regularities of English spelling (as emphasized by many contemporary spelling researchers), as well as other instructional techniques, such as self-corrected tests, which can be classified under the (c) whole word approach. The phonemic approach focuses on meaningful units of sound and sound-letter correspondences, an example of which involves the study of phonics rules. The morphemic approach involves learning about units of letters that carry meaning, an example of which is the study of morphological rules. The whole word approach involves memorizing the spellings of entire words and especially those that are irregular by at least one sound (Reed, 2012). Under that approach (which should not be confused with the "whole language" approach that promotes incidental learning of literacy skills via immersion in reading and writing activities; e.g., Altwerger et al., 1987), words are not divided into segments and are instead learned in their entirety (e.g., O'Connor & Padeliadu, 2000), such as via self-corrected tests. It should be emphasized that the three approaches summarized here do not necessarily encompass the entirety of contemporary methods of explicit spelling instruction, but rather exemplify widely used methods that many researchers currently endorse. These approaches also represent a marked contrast from the methods espoused in the Speller a century ago, including with respect to the use of distributed practice and retrieval practice.

Research-Supported and Unsupported Instructional Approaches

In the spelling literature, some common implementations of the phonemic, morphemic, and whole word approaches have received empirical support. For instance, a series of meta-analyses involving experimental and quasi-experimental studies have concluded that both the phonemic approach (in the form of phonemic awareness instruction as analyzed by Ehri et al., 2001, 2003) and the morphemic approach (via instructional methods that included an emphasis on morphemes as units of meaning, as analyzed by Goodwin & Ahn, 2013; see also Carlisle, 2010) can improve spelling skills. Qualitative reviews of at least one implementation of the whole word approach, namely the self-corrected test, have also concluded in favor of its effectiveness (e.g., Simonsen & Gunter, 2001). However, the meta-analytic literature on spelling (and reading) instruction may not be as conclusive as has long been believed: Bowers ( 2020) reviewed 12 meta-analyses purporting to support the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction for reading skills (and, where documented, spelling skills; e.g., Ehri et al., 2001) and identified flaws in data collection and analysis, including inconsistencies in the implementation of instruction across included studies, comparisons involving heterogenous control conditions, mixing of different outcome measures, inconsistent and unexpectedly high variability in effect sizes across studies, and potential publication bias. These criticisms pose a challenge for the spelling and reading instruction literature as a whole and imply that the efficacy of common implementations of the phonemic, morphemic, and whole word approaches remains to be fully established, despite favorable indications in some peer-reviewed research.

Further complicating matters, other instructional techniques that do not enjoy any evidentiary support have also emerged in recent years. These techniques are often presented in user-friendly lists of activities to attempt. For instance, a list of 18 "creative and interactive" spelling activities recently published by the commercial education website ThoughtCo features such tasks as playing hangman, using spelling words to make a fly swatter, and play-acting spelling words (Morin, 2020). Although evidently well-intended, these activities do not directly address any of the aforementioned spelling skills or involve any of the research-supported approaches described above. Rather, such activities appear to have simply been designed to be enjoyable and to expose learners to the letters in words. Although some spelling researchers have endorsed games and other fun activities as a way of promoting interest in spelling, those researchers have often emphasized that such activities are only meant to supplement other forms of instruction (e.g., E. Horn, 1954; Graham, 1983), a crucial point that many lists omit. Further, references to the "learning styles" myth (i.e., that instruction should be tailored toward students' preferred mode of learning, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic), along with advice to choose activities accordingly, are often included in such lists. Despite popular acceptance of the learning styles myth (for survey data, see Dekker et al., 2012), there are no reliable benefits to arranging instruction according to learning styles (Pashler et al., 2008; see also Coffield et al., 2004; Cuevas, 2015; Coffield et al., 2004, Willingham et al., 2015).

The existence and use of instructional techniques of dubious pedagogical value are not a new phenomenon in the spelling literature. Rice ( 1897), Cohen ( 1969), Graves ( 1977), Fitzsimmons and Loomer ( 1977), Graham ( 1983), Cronnell and Humes ( 1980), and Mazzio ( 1987) have commented on the disparity between research-supported and common practices. However, the emergence of vastly different approaches to spelling instruction-a trend that generally coincides with growing dissatisfaction with and decline in the use of traditional methods-appears to have led to an unprecedented proliferation of such techniques. Indeed, a Google search conducted for this article using the keyword "spelling activities" yielded approximately 2 million hits, and a partial review of the results revealed that only a portion of those hits involve activities that are grounded in research. Accordingly, when deciding on the manner and method of teaching spelling, today's instructors would be well-advised to take great care to identify and use research-supported methods, which is admittedly challenging given the plethora of available instructional methods and different levels of evidence regarding the efficacy of each.

Reconsidering the Role of Spelling Tests

Of all the elements that have been common to traditional forms of spelling instruction, spelling tests have been the most directly targeted for extinction in recent years. For instance, of the approximately 250 schools mentioned at the outset of this article, all have eliminated (or been directed to eliminate) spelling tests. The removal of spelling tests has been justified by claims that such tests are useless for learning, uninformative, only reflect "short-term memory," promote memorization at the expense of transfer, are too stressful or unenjoyable for students, and constitute inauthentic assessments of spelling ability (e.g., Adoniou, 2013; BBC News, 2008; Carreker, 2010; Cheek, 2016; Murray, 2015; Putman, 2017). Although spelling tests still remain dominant-well over three-quarters of primary school teachers report using them (e.g., Fresch, 2007; McNeill & Kirk, 2014)-that trend raises the question: Do tests still deserve a place in spelling instruction? A closer examination of relevant issues and evidence is warranted.

In media reports and other pronouncements regarding the elimination of spelling tests, distinctions between different types of tests are usually unmentioned. Rather, all such tests appear to have been removed indiscriminately. However, despite the stereotypical image of a test as that of a dreaded high-stakes exam, tests can be low-stakes or high-stakes and used for assessment or pedagogical purposes (for reviews, see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b; Roediger & Butler, 2011). Further, tests can be administered in a variety of formats and taken at different points in the learning process (Benjamin & Pashler, 2015; Pan & Sana, 2021). Three test types are particularly relevant for spelling instruction: (a) pretests, (b) practice tests, and (c) posttests. Each type has specific purposes, at least one of which is unique. A summary of all three types is presented in Table 5.

In spelling instruction, the pretest-that is, a typically low-stakes test that occurs before any substantial learning activities have taken place-is intended to measure what students do and do not already know. Such tests may simply involve students attempting to spell words that are dictated aloud, whereas with other implementations, such as a spelling inventory, students' spelling skills may be assessed according to developmental stage benchmarks. Pretests commonly enable instructors to focus instructional time on content that students have yet to master, as opposed to content that has already been learned. For instance, if a pretest reveals that a student has sufficient mastery of certain morphological rules and not others, then an instructor might engage that student in activities involving the rules that have yet to be learned. In the spelling literature, that "concentrated attack" (Horn & Ashbaugh, 1920, p. viii) on difficult words or materials is thought to be highly beneficial. In fact, Allred ( 1984) and others have attributed the superiority of the test-study-test method (in which a pretest is followed by other learning activities that lead to a posttest) over the study-test method (e.g., Gates, 1931; Fitzgerald, 1953; Kilzer, 1926; Sherwin, 1969) to the diagnostic information that pretests provide. Overall, the consensus among many spelling researchers is that pretests yield useful and often critically important information (Gentry, 2007; Graham, 1983; Harris et al., 2017), contrary to claims that spelling tests are uninformative.

Another potential benefit of pretesting involves its capacity to enhance learning itself. Recent research has demonstrated the pretesting or prequestion effect (e.g., Kornell et al., 2009; Pan et al., 2019a, b), in which learners exhibit improved memory for information that is encountered on a pretest, relative to information that is simply studied and not pretested. These studies suggest that taking a pretest can lead to enhanced processing of the correct answers, and possibly because such guessing increases interest in the answers (Kornell & Vaughn, 2016; Pan et al., 2020). The opportunity to study the correct answers after a pretest is a precondition for learning benefits to manifest (Treiman & Kessler, 2014). However, pretesting has not yet been applied to spelling in controlled experiments. Hence, whereas the diagnostic capabilities of pretests for spelling are well-established, the extent to which pretests improve spelling ability directly remains to be investigated.

In spelling curricula, a practice test-that is, low-stakes tests wherein learners engage in retrieval practice after having had an opportunity to study-is intended to enhance (as opposed to measure) learning. As noted earlier, a large body of literature has shown that taking practice tests yields substantial pedagogical benefits (Bjork, 1975), including enhanced memory and retention, in some cases, better transfer of learning (Carpenter, 2012; Pan & Agarwal, 2018; Pan & Rickard, 2018). Providing correct answer feedback shortly after the test enhances its benefits (Rowland, 2014). A host of spelling researchers, including T. D. Horn ( 1947), Cook ( 1957), and Cohen ( 1969), have shown that practice testing in the form of the self-corrected test and/or the study-copy-cover-compare method yields better memory for the spellings of words than alternative tasks such as segmenting words, studying meanings of words, supplying missing letters, and other methods. Accordingly, many contemporary spelling researchers strongly recommend practice testing as an effective way to learn spelling words (e.g., Harris et al., 2017; Gentry, 2011; Graham et al., 2008; Reed, 2012). Practice testing may be the most helpful for words that are irregular for at least one sound, given that rules or other regularities are not fully adequate to guide correct spelling in those cases. It should also be noted that despite complaints about the stressful nature of spelling tests (though more applicable to high-stakes exams), low-stakes practice tests have been shown to reduce test anxiety rather than exacerbate it (e.g., Agarwal et al., 2014).

Two recent studies provide further insights into the value of practice testing. Across three experiments conducted in US classrooms, Jones et al. ( 2016) had 1st and 2nd grade students first take a pretest and then learn spelling words using self-corrected tests or a method known as rainbow writing. Often appearing on lists of "fun" spelling activities, rainbow writing entails copying words multiple times in different colors. In each experiment, practice testing yielded better ability to spell words on a posttest that occurred 1 day and/or 5 weeks later. Among 1st grade students, the magnitude of pretest-to-posttest improvement from practice testing exceeded that from rainbow writing by over 300%. Additionally, students consistently reported liking testing more than rainbow writing by an approximately three-to-one margin. These results counter the claim that testing only reflects "short-term memory" (when benefits were observed at extended time intervals, as has occurred in prior work) and refute the suggestion that testing is unenjoyable. One possible explanation for students' preference for practice testing is that the experience of improving across successive tests is intrinsically motivating (for related theorizing see E. Horn & Ashbaugh, 1920). In contrast, rainbow writing did not yield consistent improvements. Overall, the results of Jones et al. reinforce the conclusion that practice testing can be a potent method of spelling instruction.

Possible limitations of practice testing are, however, suggested by Dymock and Nicholson ( 2017). In their study, 3rd grade students in a New Zealand elementary school learned spelling words across a 10-week period in one of two groups. The "list" group engaged in alphabetizing words, writing them in sentences, and using the study-copy-cover-compare method (i.e., practice testing), whereas the "strategy" group learned spelling rules (e.g., consonant doubling), practiced breaking words into syllables, and learned to identify vowel sounds. On weekly posttests, both groups performed equivalently when asked to spell the words that they had already learned, but the strategy group performed better when asked to spell new words that conformed to the rules that they had previously learned. Although the multi-task design and arguably inequitable access to information during training complicates interpretation (i.e., as the authors note, only the strategy group were directly informed about the rules), Dymock and Nicholson's results lend credence to the criticism that spelling tests support memorization more than transfer (see also Arra & Aaron, 2001). It should be noted, however, that the use of practice tests to learn spelling rules rather than just specific words, which has not been investigated to date, might yield more transferrable learning. Further, in the broader retrieval practice literature, swapping relatively low order practice test formats (e.g., simple cued recall) with higher order formats (e.g., requiring the generation of explanations) and tests with more detailed feedback can yield substantially more transfer (e.g., Hinze et al., 2011; see also Agarwal et al., 2014, Pan, Hutter, et al., 2019), but such tests have also not been investigated in the spelling literature to date.

Finally, the posttest (also called a criterial test or final test) is used in spelling instruction to assess the outcome of instructional activities. As Gentry ( 2011) and others have observed (e.g., Dunn, 2019), posttests hold instruction accountable. Without such tests, it is difficult to identify the aspects of spelling skills that students have successfully mastered or not. Posttests may take the form of the traditional Friday spelling test wherein the ability to spell words from an assigned list is assessed (such a test has face validity given that it involves retrieval of a word's spelling from memory, much as students do during writing). However, critics of traditional approaches to spelling, such as Hilden and Jones ( 2012), suggest that posttests should instead assess different components of spelling skills, such as knowledge of specific word features. In either case, posttests are often highly informative as to the state of students' spelling abilities. An alternative to posttesting involves analyzing students' writing in their essays and homework; such analyses are arguably the most authentic at measuring spelling ability, but can be more time-consuming and may miss benchmarks that posttests directly target (it should be noted, however, that scoring posttests can also take considerable amounts of time, and particularly when students' handwriting is poor). Overall, a consensus among many spelling researchers is that posttests are useful to help determine the efficacy of any spelling curricula that is being implemented (Gentry, 2011; Wallace, 2006; Westwood, 2014; see also Allred, 1984)-be it explicit or incidental, phonemic or morphemic, or otherwise.

Concluding Remarks

A wealth of spelling research provides answers to the questions posed at the outset of this article. First, in the 21st century, spelling does still matter. In fact, in many respects-from the employment sector to perceptions of writers and their writing, and even in online settings-spelling matters at least as much as it has in prior centuries. Second, there is substantial evidence favoring the explicit teaching of spelling. Although the accrual of spelling ability follows a developmental trajectory, and human beings have some capacity for developing spelling proficiency on their own, it is unrealistic to assume that spelling abilities will develop fully in the absence of explicit instruction. Third, some aspects of traditional spelling curricula, such as the use of spelling tests popularized by the Horn-Ashbaugh Speller and other textbooks of the same era, remain valid today, whereas others, such as an exclusive focus on learning individual words rather than patterns common to multiple words, are not.

Importantly, although there are many irregularities in English spelling, the study of the regularities that do exist, which was once derided as ineffective and unimportant, is now recommended by many spelling researchers. Such study might occur via phonemic, morphemic, and other instructional approaches, of which some instantiations enjoy at least some empirical support. Moreover, although the ability to spell is now considered to involve multiple skills ranging from knowledge of spelling patterns to spelling unfamiliar words, the potential exists, based on our examination of the spelling literature, to design curricula that help develop students' proficiency in all of those constituent skills.

The English language's Anglo-Saxon roots, as modified by the influence of other languages, such as Greek, Latin, and French, have led to a language that is efficient by some measures, such as number of words needed to express a request or issue a warning, and which is characterized by competing spelling rules and frequent mismatches between spelling and pronunciation. From an efficiency standpoint, children learning English as a first language and adults learning English as a second language might wish that were not the case, but for a variety of reasons, it is unrealistic to think that some government intervention will redo the English language in a way that aligns spelling and pronunciation to the same degree as other alphabetic languages. Noah Webster, in 1806, in his A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, had the stature to eliminate some inconsistencies in English spelling, which led to some small changes, such as dropping the "u" in color and honor and the final "k" in words such as public and music, but it is difficult to imagine any large-scale changes happening in this era. If correct spelling remains important for all of the reasons we have stressed, then our basic message is that we need to draw on what we know across multiple psychological disciplines to optimize the learning process-that is, taking advantage of research-supported tools and approaches where available, including explicit spelling instruction, practice testing, and psycholinguistic approaches. Also, activities that reflect societal approbation of the importance of spelling, such as the long tradition of spelling bee competitions, which have been uniquely popular in the USA, should be encouraged.

Finally, it should be emphasized that there remains substantially more to be learned about the development and bases of spelling skills and how to optimize spelling instruction. In particular, the plethora of instructional techniques now in existence deserve to be subjected to well-controlled and well-powered experimental studies that support strong causal inference (in a literature that has arguably relied too heavily on small- n studies). More rigorous research designs are needed to provide more definitive evidence, and alternative instructional methods need to be scrutinized. New systematic reviews and meta-analyses of instructional techniques should attempt to avoid the methodological and interpretative limitations that have affected prior such efforts. Last but not least, further research to identify any influences of technological innovations on spelling is definitely warranted. In short, there is still more to understand about spelling, which Noah Webster once described as "the foundation of reading and the greatest ornament of writing" (Webster, 1783, p. 26), and which an abundance of evidence indicates remains fundamentally important in modern society.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Psychology, University of California, 502 Portola Plaza, 1285 Pritzker Hall, Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1563, USA

Steven C. Pan & Robert A. Bjork

Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, USA

Timothy C. Rickard

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven C. Pan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pan, S.C., Rickard, T.C. & Bjork, R.A. Does Spelling Still Matter-and If So, How Should It Be Taught? Perspectives from Contemporary and Historical Research. Educ Psychol Rev 33, 1523-1552 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09611-y
Download citation

Get shareable link

Keywords

Spelling

Evidence-based learning

Explicit instruction

Incidental instruction

Literacy

Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Spelling Still Matter-and If So, How Should It Be Taught? Perspectives from Contemporary and Historical Research - Educational Psychology Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A century ago, spelling skills were highly valued and widely taught in schools using traditional methods, such as weekly lists, drill exercises, and low- and high-stakes spelling tests. That approach was featured in best-selling textbooks such as the Horn-Ashbaugh Speller of 1920.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

*Anderson, P. A. (1973). Effectiveness of specific spelling lessons on an individualized spelling program (Unpublished master's thesis). Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University.

*Andrews, L. (1984). Visual imagery training and encoding (spelling) performance in third grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.

Bornstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.

*Burzenski, C. (1990). The effects of structured writing on the vocabulary and spelling achievement of second grade students (Unpublished master's thesis). Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University.

*Butkovich, J. (2003). Differences in the spelling proficiency of first graders using the "buddy system" method versus a more traditional spelling approach (Unpublished master's thesis). Atlanta, GA: Mercer University.

*Catterall, M. M. (1957). An evaluation of the effectiveness of spelling enrichment exercises as an aid to learning and retention in grade VII (Unpublished master's thesis). Boston, MA: Boston University.

Cortina, J. M., & Nouri, H. (2000). Effect size for ANOVA designs (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Davis, L. H. (2000). The effects of rime-based analogy training on word reading and spelling of first-grade children with good and poor phonological awareness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

*Diaz, I. (2010). The effect of morphological instruction in improving the spelling, vocabulary, and reading comprehension of high school English language learners (ELLs) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cypress, CA: Trident University International.

*Frank, A. R. (2008). The effect of instruction in orthographic conventions and morphological features on the reading fluency and comprehension skills of high school freshmen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). San Francisco, CA: The University of San Francisco.

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., et al. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

*Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005, February). The impact of handwriting and spelling instruction on the writing and reading performance of at-risk first grade writers. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, Coronado, CA.

*Hall, D. P., Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (1995). Multilevel spelling instruction in third-grade classrooms. In K. A. Hinchman, D. L. Leu, and C. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 384-389). Chicago, IL: National Reading Council.

*Horn, P. L. (1985). Spelling in written context: An evaluation of instructional emphasis on student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.

*Jones, J. L. (1966). Effects of spelling instruction in eighth grade biological science upon scientific spelling, vocabulary, and reading comprehension; general spelling, vocabulary and reading comprehension; science progress; and science achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

*Jurka, P. A. (1992). The effects of invented spelling and direct spelling instruction on the spelling ability of first grade students (Unpublished master's thesis). Chicago, IL: Chicago State University.

*Kirk, C., & Gillon, G. T. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 341-351.

Krashen, S. (2002, Dec 11). Reading improves students' spelling. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2002/12/11/15letter.h22.htm.

*Lougheed, J. A. (1980). Training of self-study spelling strategies and their effectiveness on fourth grade students (Unpublished master's thesis). Brockport, NY: State University College at Brockport.

*Louis, R. N. (1950). A study of spelling growth in two different teaching procedures (Unpublished master's thesis). Ellensburg, WA: Central Washington College.

*Mason, G. P. (1959). Word discrimination drill and spelling: An experimental study of the effect on spelling of drill in word discrimination (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pullman, WA: State College of Washington.

*McElwee, G. W. (1974). Systematic instruction in proofreading for spelling and its effects on fourth and sixth grade composition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Moats, L. (2005/2006). How spelling supports reading: And why it is more regular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, Winter, 12-43.

*Nollau, C. B. (1974). A comparison of a linguistic approach to spelling and the test-study method of instruction in spelling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

*Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning morphological and phonological spelling rules: An intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 289-307.

*Ouellette, G., & Sénéchal, M. (2010). Invented spelling: An intervention strategy for kindergarten. Retrieved from Canadian Council of Learning website: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Research/FundedResearch/201010OOuelletteSpelling.html.

*Pittman, R. T. (2007). Improving spelling ability among speakers of African American vernacular English: An intervention based on phonological, morphological, and orthographic principle (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

*Simle, M. A. (1992). The effects of guided and unguided creative writing activities on spelling achievement in fifth grade (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

*Sussman, G. L., (1998). The effects of phonological constructed spelling on first graders' literacy development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York, NY: Fordham University.

*Turco, T. L. (1987). Acceptability and effectiveness of group contingencies for improving spelling achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

*Wagner, J. H. (1978). Peer teaching in spelling: An experimental study in selected Seventh-day Adventist high schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

*Wilson, B. L. (1947). The effect of the incidental teaching of spelling in two tenth-grade social studies classes (Unpublished master's thesis). Boston, MA: Boston University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Steve Graham

Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA

Tanya Santangelo

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Graham.

About this article

Cite this article

Graham, S., Santangelo, T. Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Read Writ 27, 1703-1743 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0
Download citation

Get shareable link

Keywords

Spelling

Meta-analysis

Writing

Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review - Reading and Writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the importance of spelling for both writing and reading, there is considerable disagreement regarding how spelling skills are best acquired. During this and virtually all of the last century, some scholars have argued that spelling should not be directly or formally taught as such instruction is not effective or efficient.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Writing and Cognitive Load Theory | Natalie Wexler | ResearchED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cognitive load theory has been described as one of the most important discussions in modern psychology that educators need to be familiar with.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cognitive load theory explains how we process information. It tells us that too much data (or data with too much complexity) reduces memory and learning. This article discusses how we can manage cognitive load in our lessons and gives five principles to reduce cognitive load for our students.

As teachers, cognitive load theory is a fundamental principle that should inform our teaching decisions, as it can critically affect our students' learning outcomes.

Sometimes abbreviated to CLT (not to be confused with 'Communicative Language Teaching'), cognitive load theory came from research into problem-solving by John Sweller in the 1980s.

Sweller built on previous research that showed that working memory has a limited capacity and described the relationship between working and long-term memory.

This diagram shows the rough process of processing and remembering information:

As you receive information, the senses pass some of it onto your working memory, while some is ignored (you can't take in every detail in your field of vision!).

Your working memory might rehearse the information for clarity (or not), and then it's processed (or encoded) into your long-term memory. The same is true in reverse when you recall information you want to use.

Your working memory acts like a gatekeeper, as it works hard to filter all the information it receives and decides which to keep.

Unfortunately, working memory isn't that large (some people have said it's like the RAM on a computer, whereas long-term memory is like a hard drive). So working memory can suddenly become a bottleneck when it hits its processing limit.

When our students are learning in our lessons, there are several ways that we can overload their working memory. Let's look at the different ways this can happen.

Sweller noted that cognitive load types fall into three broad classes.

Intrinsic cognitive load is how complicated the topic or task is. Calculus is innately more complex than simple addition, and most would agree that the present simple is more accessible to grasp than the third conditional. The intrinsic load is higher in these tasks because the complexity is higher.

Think of extraneous cognitive load as extra information that distracts from the critical information you want to get across. Too much information, too confusing, or unnecessary information.

We see this in the classroom as overly complex or poorly designed materials or a noisy environment (or even overly complex teacher instructions).

Germane cognitive load looks at how easy it is for students to link their current knowledge to additional information. It's part of the processing as the brain encodes the information into long-term memory.

Richard E. Meyer developed these in a 2002 paper. Remember them when you're planning your lessons and in the classroom!

Reduce the amount of information to only what's necessary. Keep things simple, and focus on clarity over style.

This typically applies to two critical areas in a class:

- Materials (where possible!). Don't write unnecessary instructions. Make sure images are unambiguous.

- Teacher Talk (e.g. giving instructions). Grade your language to their level. Don't overload students with too much information when you speak. Leave room to think when you ask them a question.

Top tip: differentiation is a key strategy in managing intrinsic cognitive load in the classroom.

Highlight important information somehow. Draw attention to it. Applies to both spoken and written information.

Top tip: when you speak, alter your pacing. Pause dramatically. Whatever you do, don't speak in a monotone at all times.

A classic example of this is reading the information from a screen.

While it might be necessary to present information in different formats for your students, do it because they might need it, not because of lazy teaching.

Top tip: don't keep repeating instructions when students already 'get it'. Same for language points that they've already mastered.

Show things related to each other, close together (or at least show that they're linked).

For materials, if you're labelling a diagram, don't add the label three pages after the image. Make sure related items are close together.

Top tip: Use common sense to closely link items and their meanings!

The same as (4), but with time instead of space. So, link related concepts together without leaving significant gaps. You wouldn't suddenly jump to a topic from 10 minutes ago without warning in conversation and expect students to understand!

Top tip: when presenting language to learners, it's better to present linked items (I.e. an image of an item and the name of that item) together as soon as possible.

For both temporal and spatial aspects, it helps to present language in context. This is fantastic for helping with germane cognitive load, as it automatically links the information to a relatable situation.

I've seen teachers go to extremes and make things so simple that it affects clarity. Materials that are too simple become hard to understand because they're ambiguous. Overly simplified spoken language can become grammatically incorrect or be a flawed language model.

The key is moderation.

See you again in two weeks.
Whenever you're ready, there are 3 ways I can help you:
1. Learn how to plan better, faster and stress-free with my book ' Lesson Planning for Language Teachers' (90 ratings, 4.5 ⭐ o n Amazon)

2. Develop calm students, a relaxed mind and a classroom full of learning with my book ' Essential Classroom Management' (16 ratings, 4.5 ⭐ o n Amazon)

3. Improve your teaching in five minutes a day with my ' Reflective Teaching Practice Journal' (4 ratings, 4.5 ⭐ o n Amazon)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cognitive load theory explains how we process information. It tells us that too much data (or data with too much complexity) reduces memory and learning. This article discusses how we can manage cognitive load in our lessons and gives five principles to reduce cognitive load for our students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

More than any other subject, English - and especially reading - gives pupils access to the rest of the curriculum and is fundamental to their educational success. This is why the introduction to the national curriculum says: 'Fluency in the English language is an essential foundation for success in all subjects'.

But English is so much more than the gateway to success in other curriculum subjects. Through studying literature, pupils' eyes are opened to the human experience; they explore meaning and ambiguity as well as the beauty and power of language. English also has a strong creative and expressive dimension.

This review explores the research literature relating to English. Its purpose is to identify factors that can contribute to high-quality curriculums, pedagogy, assessment and schools' systems for managing the subject. The purpose of this review is set out more fully in the 'Principles behind Ofsted's research reviews and subject reports'.

Aspects of English, particularly how to teach reading, have been the subject of much debate over many years. In this report, we have:

set out the national context in relation to English

summarised our review of research into factors that can affect the quality of education in English

considered curriculum progression in English, pedagogy, assessment and the impact of school leaders' decisions on provision

The review draws on a range of sources, including our 'Education inspection framework: overview of research' and the 3 phases of our curriculum research. However, it does not revisit in depth the research literature on phonics and on what pedagogical approaches to teaching phonics are most successful: these have already been summarised as part of the overview of research.

Our education inspection framework ( EIF) and the research underpinning it are the lenses through which we have considered, framed and presented the research literature in this review.

We hope that, through this review, we will contribute to improving the quality of education in English, thereby raising standards in reading, writing and spoken language for all young people.

Ambition for all

The requirement for maintained schools and academies to offer a broad and balanced curriculum is set out in:

the Education Act 2002, which applies to all maintained schools

the Academies Act 2010, which applies to academies

This expectation is reflected in the national curriculum and is at the heart of the EIF. English has been a core subject of the national curriculum since the Education Reform Act of 1988.

National context

The broad headlines about the performance of pupils in English have remained constant over many years.

National checks, tests and examinations show girls outperforming boys, and pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds achieving less well than their peers. International studies in which England has participated, such as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study ( PIRLS) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD)'s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), show a similar picture.

In 2018 and 2019, 74% of children achieved the early learning goal for writing at the end of the early years foundation stage ( EYFS). In the same years, 77% met the early learning goal for reading. In 2019, 73% of children met the expected level of development across all the combined early learning goals for communication, language and literacy, which include reading and writing.

At the end of Year 1, the phonics screening check assesses whether children can accurately decode a selection of words that include common grapheme-phoneme correspondences ( GPCs): the first step in word reading. Performance overall has improved substantially since 2011, the first year of the check - by 24 percentage points. These figures still show that around 3 in 10 pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot decode at the minimum standard required.

Since new key stage 1 assessments were introduced in 2016, the percentage of pupils reaching the expected standard for reading and writing has remained broadly stable for reading, with an upward trend for writing. In the 2019 key stage 2 national tests, 73% of pupils reached the expected standard in the reading test. However, put another way, over 1 in 4 pupils moved to secondary school having not met the expected standard of the test. This carries implications for their learning both in English and more widely across the secondary curriculum.

Over the last 10 years, the number of pupils studying A-level English has declined: in 2019, 57,912 pupils chose A-level English, compared with 84,037 in 2010.[footnote 13] The same data shows the decline was more marked for boys.

Curriculum and pedagogy

Aims of education in English

English is a complex subject that combines the disciplines of English language and literature. It is beyond the scope of this review to debate the aims of a curriculum for English. Instead, we discuss the nature of the curriculum and the pedagogy that could meet the aims of the national curriculum for English.

The review structure is designed to consider individual national curriculum aims. It draws on research that outlines the progression in curriculum content that best enables pupils to meet each of these aims. The review then discusses what might be the most appropriate pedagogies for learning that particular content. For example, the review considers the aim of improving reading comprehension and how comprehension becomes possible partly through acquiring and deepening vocabulary. Appropriate pedagogies for learning vocabulary are then discussed. The use of this structure avoids confusion between curriculum goals and the means of achieving and nurturing those goals. It also helps reduce repetition when discussing knowledge of language, such as vocabulary, across each of the speaking, reading and writing modalities.

The implications of research into expertise bear out the usefulness of a curriculum structure that places varying emphasis on different curriculum goals as pupils gain expertise.[footnote 16] However, this review also considers the ways in which English is a unified subject across all phases of schooling. There is a separate section on early years, but the insights in the other sections are generally relevant to pupils in both primary and secondary schooling. This is because most of the principles discussed are important at primary and secondary level or are relevant to many pupils in both phases of schooling. Where it is probable that findings of the review are more relevant at primary or at secondary level, we refer to 'younger pupils' or 'older pupils', respectively. We use this wording to be clear that we do not imply there is a specific age when these findings start to apply.

The importance of foundational knowledge for spoken language, reading and writing

One distinctive feature of English teaching is that the modalities of speaking, reading and writing are not only the objects of study but also the means through which the subject is learned. Teaching activities, or pedagogies, to improve speaking, reading and writing will necessarily involve activities that use speaking, reading and writing.

There is a risk that planning for English teaching ends up focusing on using modalities (pedagogy) at the expense of identifying the foundational knowledge of language that pupils need for comprehension or communication in whatever modality they are using. When this happens, means and ends have become confused. For example, there is a body of research exploring the benefits of using discussion (dialogic talk) as a generic pedagogy.[footnote 17] Using such a pedagogy to help pupils learn any objective across curriculum subjects should not be conflated with the prior teaching of the structures of language that would allow effective communication in the first place.

Knowledge of language, which includes linguistic knowledge like vocabulary and grammar, as well as knowledge of the world for comprehension, underpins progression in spoken language, reading and writing. This insight repeatedly emerges from the evidence outlined in this review. The review will explore the important implications of this insight for curriculum design. It argues that, when planning a curriculum, teachers and leaders should prioritise progression in knowledge of language and of its forms, usage, grammar and vocabulary. This knowledge, of the structures of language, can then be used by pupils across their spoken language, reading and writing.

A survey of teachers reported overwhelmingly that if pupils have limited vocabulary, this affects their progress across a wide range of subjects.[footnote 18] Eighty per cent of these teachers said it was 'very' or 'extremely' challenging for pupils with limited vocabulary to read national test papers. This limited vocabulary, or so called 'word gap',[footnote 19] has been an area of interest over decades. A range of research has found that this word gap exists between pupils from different socio-economic backgrounds and within different socio-economic groups.[footnote 20] The nature of this word gap is explored in the section 'The importance of high-quality spoken language'.

Importantly, pupils can use the knowledge learned in the context of one modality to help them in another. For example, they can use vocabulary learned through reading when they are speaking and writing, both in school and their wider lives.

The early English curriculum in schools

Summary

This section will outline findings suggesting that, in the early years and into key stage 1, teachers need to develop children's spoken language as well as accurate word reading and spelling. They also need to teach children fluent letter formation (unjoined handwriting).

Pupils should be taught to read using a systematic synthetic phonics programme in Reception and this should not be delayed if children are not already phonologically aware. Teaching phonics also supports the development of pupils' handwriting and spelling. Schools should identify early on any children who have not grasped the alphabetic code and intervene swiftly. Children who master the alphabetic code early on make better progress than their peers who do not. Good language development, including vocabulary, has benefits for pupils beyond their reading.

The importance of high-quality spoken language

The components of reading and writing in the early years and key stage 1

Skilled word reading involves both the speedy working out of the pronunciation of unfamiliar printed words (decoding) and the speedy recognition of familiar printed words. Underpinning both is the understanding that the letters on the page represent the sounds in spoken words. Good comprehension draws from linguistic knowledge (in particular of vocabulary and grammar) and on knowledge of the world.

The programmes of study for key stages 1 and 2 are organised to reflect these 2 aspects of reading - word reading and comprehension.[footnote 37]

The programmes of study for writing distinguish between 'transcription' and 'composition'. This reflects the approach to reading, and sees writing as its counterpart (with spelling as the counterpart of decoding). Transcription also includes handwriting.

Once children are fluent in word reading, they are able to focus on comprehending what they read.[footnote 38] Similarly, fluency in transcription frees up working memory to focus on composing writing.

Language comprehension and composition can be developed through a literature-rich environment,[footnote 41] for example through interactions between adults and children and by listening to, talking about and learning by heart stories, poems, rhymes and songs.

Starting phonics teaching early

A rigorous review and meta-analysis of research literature on reading by the National Reading Panel ( NRP), from the United States, found it highly beneficial for phonics teaching to begin on entry to school.[footnote 42] According to the NRP analysis, systematic phonics teaching is much more effective if introduced early on rather than after American first grade at age 6. Daily systematic phonics instruction leads to a faster start in early reading and spelling.[footnote 43] Findings from cognitive neuroscience reinforce the importance of early phonics teaching. This allows children to develop efficient word-reading skills.[footnote 44] Children become primed to learn to read.

Our overview of research highlighted evidence that showed a systematic synthetic approach is particularly effective and that children need direct instruction in phonics. This is especially the case for those from lower socio-economic status backgrounds and those who are having difficulties reading.[footnote 45] Phonics represents a body of knowledge needed for successful word reading. Synthetic phonics teaches children to decode words: children look at each grapheme to say each corresponding phoneme in turn, and then to blend the phonemes to say the whole word. They are taught to encode (spell) words, by identifying the phonemes in spoken words first and then writing the graphemes that represent the phonemes.

Young children with well-developed phonemic awareness skills tend to be successful readers, while children without these skills are not.[footnote 46] Shanahan defines phonemic awareness as being about 'hearing and thinking about or manipulating the individual sounds within words'.[footnote 47] However, phonics teaching in Reception should not be delayed if children cannot yet distinguish individual phonemes. This is because children's ability to do this will typically develop as a result of phonics teaching.[footnote 48] Exposing them to letters and the sounds they represent and teaching them about GPCs in phonics lessons help children to distinguish individual phonemes and improve their phonemic awareness.[footnote 49] Evidence from the NRP concluded that phonemic awareness instruction had a greater impact when it was taught with letters rather than without letters.[footnote 50] Children who find it difficult to distinguish between phonemes often benefit from small group or one-to-one teaching to support them to link sounds to letters.[footnote 51]

Drawing on these research findings, the Department for Education reading framework[footnote 52] states that: 'To enable children to keep up, they should be given extra practice, either in a small group or one-to-one, whether or not a specific reason has been found. The extra practice should:

take place in a quiet place, at a regular time every day so that the children become familiar with the routine

be a school priority, with maximum efforts made to avoid disruption or cancellation

be provided by a well-trained adult: teacher or teaching assistant

be consistent with the school's mainstream phonics programme

include activities that secure the important phonic knowledge the children have not grasped.'

Decodable books

The national curriculum requires that children hear, share and discuss a wide range of high-quality books. In terms of their own reading, the national curriculum states that they should practise with decodable books. These are 'books that are consistent with their developing phonic knowledge and that do not require them to use other strategies to work out words'.[footnote 53] During story time, the books that teachers and parents read to children develop their language knowledge. These books do not need to be decodable because the children are not using them to learn to decode.

Pupils who struggle with decoding

Ongoing assessment of all children's phonic knowledge is critical to identifying pupils who need intervention. They need to be taught the alphabetic code as effectively and as swiftly as possible so that they do not fall behind their peers, and so that they have full access to the curriculum that proficient reading gives them.

Fluency

In the early stages of learning to read, it is critical that children achieve both accuracy and sufficient speed in decoding (fluency). The national curriculum says that pupils in Year 1 should be able to read words comprising the Year 1 GPCs 'accurately and speedily'.[footnote 60] Pupils who can decode accurately but cannot do so quickly will not progress towards reading confidently beyond sounding out words in texts. Fluent word reading frees up children's working memory to focus on comprehension.[footnote 61] To develop fluency, children need repeated practice.

Writing

Working towards written composition

In the earliest stages of writing instruction, it may be effective to teach composition and transcription separately. For example, when focusing on composition, pupils can convey their ideas orally. Teachers can model how text is an important vehicle for recording ideas, thoughts and feelings by putting pupils' ideas into writing, modelling spelling and punctuation, or showing how a writer chooses appropriate words and sentence structure to convey an idea. This allows pupils to focus their attention on composition through oral activities. Separate teaching activities can be devoted to transcription. For example, in the early stage of phonics instruction, practising letter formation or writing simple sentences dictated by the teacher can support recall of GPCs for spelling.[footnote 64] Developing written composition is considered in more detail in the 'Writing' section of this review.

Spelling

When young children are taught phonics, they learn the alphabetic code for spelling (encoding) as well as for reading (decoding). This is why spelling and decoding have been referred to as 'reversible processes'.[footnote 65] Reading involves blending the individual sounds of a word to say the whole word, while spelling requires the writer to segment a whole word into its individual sounds (phonemes) and to identify what they are.

As well as the skill of segmenting, children need to know which graphemes can represent the separate phonemes they have identified in the word they want to spell. They also need to know how to spell what the national curriculum refers to as 'common exception words', so called because their GPCs are unusual or have not yet been taught.[footnote 66]

Knowing how to spell a word 'makes the representation of it sturdy and accessible for fluent reading'.[footnote 67] This is because spelling and reading call on the same representation - that is, the order of the letters that make up the word.

The Department for Education's non-statutory curriculum guidance for the early years, 'Development matters', suggests that teachers of Reception-age children should dictate sentences for children to write that contain only the taught letter-to-sound correspondences.[footnote 68] Similarly, the Year 1 national curriculum programme of study requires pupils to write down dictated sentences using 'the GPCs and common exception words taught so far'.[footnote 69]

Dictation gives children opportunities to practise and apply their spelling knowledge and segmenting skills, without having to compose sentences by themselves. It requires them to distinguish between the sounds they hear in order to choose the correct graphemes to represent the sounds and to form the letters correctly. They also have to understand what they are hearing to distinguish between homophones (for example, 'to'/'two' and 'meat'/'meet').

Handwriting

The national curriculum specifies that children should be taught to correctly form letters of the correct size and orientation.[footnote 70] This requires effort and attention, as well as suitable motor skills. There is evidence that repeated practice in handwriting is necessary to go beyond accuracy to fluency in letter formation.[footnote 71] There is no need to start the formal teaching of handwriting before Reception, but children at the end of the EYFS should be able to 'hold a pencil effectively in preparation for fluent writing - using the tripod grip in almost all cases'.[footnote 72]

The national curriculum requires children to learn unjoined handwriting before they 'start using some of the diagonal and horizontal strokes that are needed to join letters'.[footnote 73] Delaying teaching joined handwriting gives teachers and children time to focus on other aspects of the writing process, such as composition, spelling and forming letters correctly.

Research supports the idea that writing letters may be important for supporting children's early reading development, because it stimulates the areas of the brain known to underpin successful reading. A small study with 4- to 5-year-olds showed that practice in writing letters 'stroke by stroke' may be the 'gateway' through which beginning readers learn to recognise the features of each letter, as well as learning which features are not important.[footnote 74]

Based on the above, high-quality English in early years/key stage 1 may have the following features:

Vocabulary is developed explicitly to reduce the word gap in the early years, and to enable disadvantaged children to develop their vocabulary faster.

The school prioritises daily teaching of systematic synthetic phonics from the start of the Reception Year and into key stage 1, until pupils are fluent in word reading (decoding) and transcription (spelling and handwriting).

Daily opportunities for children to apply their knowledge of GPCs by reading 'decodable' books that support their fluency in word reading.

Teachers focus on identifying children who are not able to decode accurately (or are otherwise at risk of not learning to read) early and prioritise teaching them to read.

The programme of reading develops pupils' accuracy and speed.

Children practise composition through oral activities before their transcription becomes fluent.

Children get the practice they need to acquire fluent transcription skills (spelling and handwriting), which is the foundation for their progress in writing.

Carefully chosen dictation activities enable pupils to practise and apply their spelling knowledge and segmenting skill to use the content they have been taught and to do so without having their working memories overloaded by composing sentences.

Spoken language

Summary

This section will outline findings that suggest that a strong command of the spoken word is a crucial outcome of English education. The benefits of spoken language extend beyond just success at school. Becoming an articulate, effective communicator forms the basis of democratic engagement within wider society.

A curriculum for spoken language depends on a range of different interrelated aspects: physical, linguistic, cognitive, and social and emotional. The discipline of rhetoric can provide pupils with insight into how spoken language is used by writers and orators. Opportunities for pupils to develop their proficiency in spoken language require explicit teaching of the knowledge, for example vocabulary, and ideas necessary for effective communication. These opportunities should be planned carefully, both in English lessons and across other subjects. The teacher has an important role in modelling competence as a speaker and listener, contributing significantly to developing pupils' spoken language.

A curriculum for spoken language

This section builds on 'The early English curriculum in schools' section of the review and applies to primary and secondary levels. Research indicates that there is a correlation between pupils' spoken language skills and their academic outcomes, social development and emotional development.[footnote 77] This suggests a link between spoken language development and pupils' broader life outcomes.[footnote 78] Therefore, spoken language is an important goal of the curriculum. Alexander outlines how talk can be undervalued because its function is considered to be primarily social, but talk in classrooms is cognitive and cultural and well as social.[footnote 79]

For pupils of all ages to use spoken language successfully, they need to make progress in interrelated aspects of language:[footnote 82]

physical (vocal control and body language, such as making eye contact and speaking loudly and clearly)

linguistic (knowledge of vocabulary and grammatical constructions, and use of rhetorical devices)

cognitive (knowledge of content, organisation of ideas, and tailoring talk to a specific purpose, such as to persuade or inform). This will include pupils learning about 'exploratory talk' (to explore new ideas and come to new understandings) and 'presentational talk' (to share their thinking with others).[footnote 83] Pupils should learn how to pose questions, and use talk to narrate, explain, speculate, imagine, hypothesise, explore, include, discuss, argue, reason and justify[footnote 84]

social and emotional (considering the needs of different listeners, responding appropriately to others and developing the confidence to share ideas with different audiences)

It is important to note that spoken language is not just about improved speech. Pupils also need to develop their ability to collaborate through conversation.[footnote 85]

A curriculum should link these elements. For example, pupils' success in using spoken language depends on their knowledge of the topic. Even when classroom talk is chosen as a pedagogy to encourage speculative and exploratory discussion, pupils need knowledge of possible areas to explore through discussion and how they can be framed.

Standard English

The register and vocabulary of social talk that pupils might engage in at home and with their peers is different to the academic or formal register and vocabulary used in classrooms, in universities and formally in many workplaces. The national curriculum programmes of study for spoken language and for writing emphasise the importance of pupils being taught to use Standard English. A spoken language curriculum should ensure that all pupils can select and use appropriate grammar and register for audience and purpose, including Standard English where necessary.

Teaching activities for spoken language

There is an important distinction between what primary and secondary school pupils need to learn for success in spoken language and the teaching activities that might promote learning spoken language. This distinction is important because it cannot be assumed that pupils will learn the knowledge necessary for effective spoken communication, for example vocabulary, simply by being encouraged to speak more or through unstructured activities. That knowledge can be identified and directly taught and is also acquired through reading.[footnote 86]

Opportunities for pupils of all ages to develop their proficiency should be planned carefully, both in English lessons and across other subjects. Classroom activities should allow opportunities for teachers to model competence as a speaker and listener. This modelling contributes significantly to developing pupils' spoken language.[footnote 87]

Teachers should therefore model language forms that pupils might not encounter away from school, as well as introducing potentially unfamiliar vocabulary, returning to key words and phrases to embed new knowledge. This might include teachers reframing pupils' spoken language and asking pupils to repeat back the reframing.

Teachers can support pupils in developing the ability to collaborate in conversation by providing ground rules.[footnote 91] For example, they can ensure that all pupils contribute, without any individual dominating. Effective talk involves turn-taking, managing interactions, active listening and responding appropriately.

Rhetoric

For older pupils, the discipline of rhetoric can give an insight into how writers and orators use spoken language.[footnote 92] Pupils can learn how spoken language is constructed and produced, and the connections between words, sentences and whole texts or in speech, from individual utterances to dialogues and speeches. Pupils can learn about the meanings and nuances of the spoken word, the craft of a writer or speaker, and the ways in which spoken language conveys, explores and manipulates meaning. They can grasp the role and effect of rhetorical devices, the range of registers and social contexts of spoken language in use, the interplay of speaking, reading and writing, the artistry of spoken language and the knowledge and skills that underpin that artistry.

Based on the above, high-quality English may have the following features:

An effective spoken language curriculum identifies the components that pupils need to learn for successful spoken communication. It focuses on interrelated aspects that constitute effective spoken language (physical, linguistic, cognitive, and social and emotional).

Teachers equip pupils with the right knowledge and vocabulary for them to be able to speak on a topic effectively.

Pupils learn how to take part in exploratory talk and use talk to present ideas.

There is a focus on ensuring that pupils can select and use appropriate grammar and register for audience and purpose, including Standard English where necessary.

Teachers model spoken language for pupils. This includes language that pupils might not encounter away from school.

The curriculum provides frequent opportunities for pupils to practise, refine and apply their spoken language knowledge and skills.

Reading

Summary

This section sets out findings that suggest that skilled reading requires accurate, speedy word reading and good language comprehension. Urgency is necessary to ensure that pupils learn to decode accurately and with automaticity at the start of primary school. This also allows pupils to form positive attitudes to reading.

Pupils of all ages need to be taught a broad curriculum that will allow them to comprehend increasingly complex texts. Reading comprehension is supported by practising strategies to uncover the meaning of texts. However, teaching these strategies is time-limited in its usefulness and unlikely to benefit pupils before they can read sufficiently fluently, which is most likely to be in upper key stage 2. Reading comprehension requires knowledge of vocabulary, context, syntax and narrative structure and the capacity to read fluently. Carefully choosing texts to be studied in English can support progression, as will reading in other relevant subjects.

In this section of the review, we will go beyond discussion of what children need to learn in Reception. We will consider the goals of a high-quality curriculum in reading for primary- and secondary-age pupils.

Progression in comprehension

Factors that underpin reading comprehension

Three factors underpin reading comprehension and their significance to comprehension is explored, in turn, below. These factors are:

knowledge - for example, linguistic knowledge, orthographic knowledge and general knowledge

processes - for example, decoding, word identification, meaning retrieval, sentence parsing, inferring and comprehension monitoring

general cognitive resources: for example, memory[footnote 93]

Knowledge informs comprehension

References to knowledge as it informs comprehension can be understood in different ways:

in research, references to knowledge for comprehension include syntactical and lexical knowledge. Thus, the knowledge necessary for comprehension is 'broadly conceived and may include information such as the meanings of words, rules of grammar, knowledge of events and temporal relations, episodes, scenarios, emotions, and characters'.[footnote 98]

in English schools, references to knowledge for comprehension can sometimes more specifically refer to a more limited consideration of 'background knowledge', understood as a pupil's knowledge of the text's context. This might be topic knowledge provided by the teacher to help the pupil make sense of the text or - more particularly - knowledge that the pupil can supply in their answers to comprehension questions.

A narrower discussion of knowledge, limited to context, may lead to confusion when discussing the knowledge needed for comprehension. This is because it is difficult to disentangle the types of knowledge used in comprehension. For example, it can be unhelpful to consider vocabulary separately from contextual knowledge. For comprehension pupils will need knowledge of vocabulary as well as knowledge of the text's context, and these are closely intertwined. To understand the text's vocabulary requires a grasp of the context in which those specific words have been used. This is because the words that readers know represent concepts and information. Therefore, these concepts have to be understood to appreciate the meaning of the words that are read.[footnote 99]

In this review, we will consider knowledge broadly. Where the term 'background knowledge' is used, this will not preclude an appreciation of how vocabulary serves as a label for concepts pupils understand from their contextual knowledge to allow comprehension.

Text complexity and progression in reading comprehension

For example, the primary curriculum should prepare pupils during key stage 2 to read independently in different subjects and to read a wide range of fiction and non-fiction. The key stage 2 curriculum should prepare pupils for key stage 3, at which point texts will include prose, poetry and drama, Shakespeare plays and seminal world literature, both contemporary and pre-1914. The key stage 3 curriculum should prepare pupils for the reading demands of key stage 4, including literature on the GCSE examination specifications.

Factors that may affect text complexity for pupils of all ages, and therefore their comprehension, include:

linguistic features, such as longer or more complicated sentence structures or less-common, academic or domain-specific vocabulary[footnote 103]

textual references to concepts and objects, and knowledge drawn from experience, including cultural experience[footnote 104]

cohesion - both in the ideas explored across a text and the language used to articulate those ideas[footnote 105]

levels of meaning - texts with a single level of meaning are often simpler to understand than those with multiple levels, for example allegorical or satirical texts[footnote 106]

text structure - texts with simple, linear, chronological structures are often easier to understand than those that have non-linear time sequences or other structural irregularities and manipulations[footnote 107]

style of narrator - texts with a single, reliable narrator are often more accessible than those that contain unreliable or multiple narrators[footnote 108]

allusions, cultural references and intertextuality (relationships or references to other texts)[footnote 109]

These factors are discussed in further detail in the 'Literature' section of this review.

The curriculum should ensure that pupils of all ages acquire the knowledge they need for improved comprehension through reading increasingly challenging texts at each stage. These can provide a smooth ramp from listening to stories and poetry in the early years to reading Shakespeare and 19th-century texts as well as pre-20th-century literary non-fiction.

First in reading The Magician's Nephew, they are alerted to the fact that people spoke differently then. Over time, they begin to pick up some of... [the text's] rhythm and quirks but at an accessible scale and wrapped in a story that is engaging... perhaps later they read something that has been written fifty years before that. It is the first step in a process that gives students access over the long run to the texts of the past.

Incremental exposure to increasingly difficult texts alone may allow some pupils to acquire the knowledge they need to read challenging material independently. However, an effective English curriculum will explicitly identify what it is that pupils need to learn in order to understand progressively more complex texts. It is this knowledge, listed below, that teaching should highlight and develop.

Progression in reading should come from reading a broad range of increasingly challenging texts. Reading these texts can gradually increase pupils' 'readiness' for reading the ambitious literature that is the end point of the national curriculum. The knowledge gained through this reading is explored in the 'Components of comprehension and effective pedagogies to teach them' section.

Components of comprehension and effective pedagogies to teach them

Vocabulary: what words should instruction focus on?

Teachers can select texts that contain some vocabulary that is likely to be unfamiliar but that are not overwhelmingly difficult to understand. While pupils of all ages will gradually learn vocabulary through repeated encounters as they read, there is evidence showing that it is beneficial to identify and explicitly teach some vocabulary.[footnote 118]

An effective curriculum is also likely to teach pupils the meaning of roots and affixes (prefixes and suffixes).[footnote 121] Research has shown that learning the meaning of common affixes such as un-, dis-, -able and -ing can help pupils to understand unfamiliar words, as well as being useful for spelling.[footnote 122] Building knowledge about morphemes (the smallest meaningful units of language) in English can develop vocabulary by helping pupils to make informed guesses about the possible meanings of new words, linking new words with familiar ones.[footnote 123] Awareness of how in English the meaning of words can be changed by adding inflections such as -s, -ed or -er as well, and knowledge of the history of words (etymology) and how this can affect meaning, will also support pupils' vocabulary and reading comprehension.[footnote 124]

Ways of teaching vocabulary

Knowledge of morphology, which is also vital for spelling, plays an important role in comprehension. Activities can be designed to help pupils recognise that similar-looking words might be related in meaning, even if they are pronounced differently - such as 'inquire' and 'inquisition'. These activities can help pupils' understanding because there is a strong correlation between spelling and comprehension.[footnote 131]

Knowledge of context

As outlined in the 'Knowledge informs comprehension' section above, it is difficult to clearly delineate knowledge of the context of the text from other knowledge needed for comprehension, such as knowledge of vocabulary. This is because understanding a text's vocabulary requires a grasp of the context in which those specific words can be used. The background knowledge needed to understand the words, phrases and ideas in a text goes well beyond socio-historical background to the text or topic knowledge. However, readers with good topic knowledge will have better comprehension of texts related to that topic than of texts that they know less about.[footnote 132] As knowledge development is related to reading, weaker readers often have less relevant knowledge than their peers.[footnote 133]

Teaching, therefore, needs to provide the contextual knowledge that pupils require to adequately comprehend a text. This does not, however, mean that it is necessarily useful to pre-teach swathes of background to an individual text if that knowledge is not essential for adequate comprehension of that text. Indeed, through reading itself, pupils can find out about the world beyond their own experience, including what they learn in other lessons on the curriculum. Teachers should therefore give pupils an abundant and rich variety of accessible texts to read in relevant classes across the curriculum as well as independently. Over time, this reading can gradually broaden pupils' horizons and their knowledge of words, phrases and ideas and ensure that they become increasingly able to comprehend the texts they will encounter in their later education and through life.

Knowledge of narrative structure

From the early years onwards, pupils should become increasingly familiar with the structures and features of narrative texts, such as setting, character, plot and conflict. This is not the same as knowing the meaning of these terms but rather an increasing familiarity with different structures and features of texts that can come through broad and deep engagement in a rich variety of texts provided by the teacher. Once pupils are fluent readers, teachers can draw their attention to these features to better enable pupils to recognise them in future reading. Older primary-age pupils can use texts that contain a much wider range of structural elements, such as subplots and multiple problems.

Knowledge of syntax

Pupils who can read fluently should increasingly encounter texts that contain more, and more complex, multi-clause sentences. An effective curriculum can include teachers reading accessible but more complex texts aloud. Pupils need to hear and read these texts regularly to help them become familiar with the structure of sentences and therefore increase the likelihood that they will be able to understand the texts they read independently.[footnote 139]

When pupils understand the meaning conveyed through a sentence structure, they are better able to read aloud with an understanding of the possible and intended phrasing, rhythm, expressiveness and stress of sentences (also known as prosody).[footnote 140]

Rasinski suggests a focus on 4 aspects of prosody:[footnote 141]

Prosody is important because it connects children's knowledge of written sounds and words with spoken language and allows children to read with meaning. It 'completes the bridge by connecting to comprehension'.[footnote 142]

Teaching reading fluency

Research found that simultaneously listening to and reading along with texts was a valuable strategy with struggling readers. The teacher's reading shows how the text should sound and, in doing so, highlights the 'prosodic cues' in a text to pupils. However, the demands on working memory of this activity suggest that pupils' comprehension might be lower when reading-while-listening.[footnote 151] This possible limitation should be considered when deciding whether this strategy will fulfil the aims of the lesson. It would also seem counterproductive to undertake this sort of activity before pupils have mastered the alphabetic code.

A third strategy considered in the same review was discussing the wording in a text before reading it. Pupils can practise key words in the text before they read it for themselves.

Comprehension processes and the limits of teaching comprehension strategies

A range of processes allow knowledge to be activated and processed. These processes include decoding, word identification, meaning retrieval, sentence parsing, inferring and comprehension monitoring.

There is good evidence that significant aspects of these processes happen automatically, for example inference generation.[footnote 154] Skilled readers may unconsciously use a range of comprehension strategies to uncover the meaning of texts. However, pupils may need to be taught to use strategies that prompt comprehension processes. For example, teachers may recognise the phenomenon of a child who sounds fluent but has limited understanding of what has been read. This may be particularly the case when pupils regularly do not have all the knowledge (outlined in the 'Components of comprehension and effective pedagogies to teach them' section above) that they may need to readily comprehend a text and therefore may have never grown to expect to understand the texts they read even if they can decode them. Therefore, some pupils may need to build the habit of constructing meaning as they read. There is plentiful evidence of the benefit of teaching pupils reading comprehension strategies that direct them to pay attention to the meaning of the text.[footnote 155] The NRP found that those approaches that emphasise pupils' understanding of the reasoning and mental processes involved in reading strategically were most successful.[footnote 156]

The implications of these findings are significant, given that it could be assumed that if pupils struggle to comprehend texts, then more teaching of strategies must be necessary. Beyond some time-limited instructional and practice sequences, comprehension strategies are unlikely to be useful as a continued learning objective for most pupils. Willingham and Lovette argue that this is because these strategies are not skills that can be honed through repeated practice regardless of context. Rather, they are useful metacognitive strategies, or maxims, that will be applied successfully when pupils have enough relevant knowledge of the text to do so.[footnote 160]

This underlines the importance of ensuring that pupils read a breadth of literature. This will allow pupils to embed strategies they have learned even when they no longer need the time-limited instructional prompting of the teacher, as well as ensuring that pupils encounter the range of knowledge they need for successful comprehension. Comprehension strategies do not provide an ongoing progression in reading. Progress comes from developing the knowledge needed to understand increasingly challenging texts. This can be illustrated when considering inference.

Making inferences

Inference depends on a reader's vocabulary knowledge, contextual knowledge and knowledge of language structures. The reader needs this knowledge to make links between different parts of the text and construct a robust mental model of it. This is because language is 'surrounded by a cloud of taken-for-granted, unspoken knowledge, without which the said cannot be understood'.[footnote 161]

Readers use these links and background information to fill in details not explicitly stated by the author.[footnote 162] Therefore, knowledge of the text content is needed to make inferences and this is why general practice in making inferences will not lead to a general inferencing skill.

To illustrate this point, in the following example, the reader unconsciously draws from background knowledge, for example of vocabulary and context, to realise that it is Alison's birthday, although we are not told this: 'As the singing came to an end, Alison blew out the candles. Everyone clapped.' The reader integrates the new information from the text with their existing knowledge - in this case, about birthday parties.

Comprehension monitoring

Skilled readers monitor their comprehension and detect when it breaks down. For example, when they spot an apparent inconsistency, they re-read or apply their background knowledge of the topic. In the 'Comprehension processes and the limits of teaching comprehension strategies' section above, we discuss how pupils may not expect to understand a text when they regularly do not have all the knowledge that they may need for comprehension. These less-skilled readers may not know that it is important to think while reading.

This 'comprehension monitoring' correlates closely with wider reading comprehension. As we might expect, older pupils and more expert readers tend to be better at detecting when their understanding has broken down. For this reason, pupils need to be alerted to the importance of thinking about what they read and understanding the content.

Comprehension strategies have an ongoing use as a pedagogical tool

When pupils no longer need to be taught to use comprehension strategies, it is reasonable to continue to use these strategies as a pedagogical tool. When a teacher needs pupils to think carefully about a certain meaning of a particular text, they might direct pupils to apply a particular strategy they have learned, for example summarising or identifying the main point. In this situation, the primary curriculum goal is not to teach or practise a strategy (when pupils are already familiar with the strategy from prior teaching). Rather, the teacher can direct pupils to use a strategy to draw out a particular aspect of the text and its meaning, which may not otherwise have been readily apparent to pupils, given their current knowledge.

Through applying the strategy to consider a feature of the text, pupils acquire new knowledge that may enable them to comprehend other and more challenging texts in the future. While there might be good reasons for selecting comprehension strategies as a pedagogical tool, this does not mean that there is a benefit from pupils discovering an insight (about a text or otherwise) for themselves over learning such an insight from their teacher.[footnote 165]

Implications of limits to working memory

Reading independently and for pleasure

Research on the benefits of pupils' reading for pleasure is extensive.[footnote 169] This research indicates a positive correlation between pupils' engagement with reading and their attainment in reading, motivation to read and their self-confidence in reading.[footnote 170] Research also suggests a link between pupils choosing to read and improved general knowledge;[footnote 171] a wider vocabulary and better language development;[footnote 172] and improved attainment and more positive attitudes to writing.[footnote 173]

Reading for pleasure is highly desirable. However, an emphasis on reading for pleasure does not mean it is wise to ignore the positive impact on all children of exposure to increasingly challenging texts in relevant lessons across the curriculum. Initiatives like dressing up as book characters, collecting points and certificates, or creating elaborate displays might also help to raise awareness of reading. Yet they could also be a distraction, taking time and energy away from reading itself.

A curriculum for reading for pleasure

The manifold benefits of reading for pleasure might lead to the assumption that the best starting point is to encourage pupils to read. However, research suggests that it is the more accomplished readers who choose to read more.

A meta-analysis of research with children aged 5 to 18 considered predictors of long-term motivation to read.[footnote 174] This analysis suggested that achieving short-term motivation to read is not a predictor for the long term when compared with pupils becoming accomplished readers early. The latter is a stronger predictor of later motivation. In other words, if children struggle with reading early on, they may not be persuaded to read more. The findings emphasise the overriding importance of children getting off to a successful start with reading, as this is the strongest predictor of later motivation.

For many, reading for pleasure is something that develops at home, when books and other reading material are available, and where parents and carers read with children and also read themselves.[footnote 175] For others, it is vital that the curriculum and wider school culture nurture reading for pleasure.

Research suggests several strands that form a 'coherent strategy' that schools can draw on when designing a curriculum that supports reading for pleasure. These include:

developing teachers' knowledge of children's literature and other texts

developing teachers' knowledge of pupils' current reading practices and preferences

establishing a 'reading for pleasure pedagogy' that includes reading aloud and time for pupils who can read fluently to read independently

creating social reading environments, and providing time for informal book talk and recommendations

supporting staff to become 'reading teachers' who read widely and reflect on their own and others' reading

creating reading communities, both in and out of school[footnote 176]

Children may enjoy reading but prefer other activities. Making the option of reading the most readily available seems sensible. When the option is visible and attractive, it can make it more likely that children will read.[footnote 177]

Based on the above, high-quality English may have the following features:

The reading curriculum enables pupils to read increasingly complex and whole texts.

Teachers develop pupils' reading accuracy, automaticity and prosody.

Time is given to pupils reading a lot of text, across the school curriculum, to develop their reading fluency.

Instruction in reading comprehension strategies is time-limited and explicit.

Knowledge necessary for comprehension is taught explicitly and includes vocabulary, knowledge of narrative structure, lexical and syntactical knowledge, as well as knowledge of context and ideas in the text.

Teachers emphasise the relationships between words, helping pupils to explore morphology and etymology to support their comprehension and spelling.

Teachers encourage pupils to read for pleasure while ensuring that they become accomplished readers as soon as possible.

Planned and spaced recall helps pupils to retain the new vocabulary they have learned.

Writing

Summary

Fluent writing depends on transcription (spelling and handwriting) and composition, which involves knowledge about the topic and discourse knowledge about how to write effectively. Explicit teaching of foundational skills, including spelling and handwriting, sentence construction, control of grammar and use of vocabulary, allows all pupils to write effectively. Cycles of planning, drafting, revising and editing can improve writing but do not significantly improve motivation to write or improve the quality of struggling writers' compositions.

Features of an effective writing curriculum in primary and secondary schools

... well-structured formal expository and narrative essays; stories, scripts, poetry and other imaginative writing; notes and polished scripts for talks and presentations; and a range of other narrative and non-narrative texts, including arguments, and personal and formal letters.

An effective writing curriculum will give pupils opportunities to develop their proficiency in 2 interrelated areas of writing:

transcription (spelling and handwriting)

composition (articulating ideas and structuring them in speech and writing)

Transcription

Fluent transcription skills are the foundations of writing. If pupils master these, they can then focus their attention on developing, organising and communicating their ideas. If spelling and handwriting are not fluent, pupils' working memory is overloaded and it becomes difficult to focus on composition.[footnote 181]

An effective writing curriculum should give time for pupils to be taught and to practise the component skills of transcription, at least in the early stages of primary. Kellogg has argued that, if pupils do not develop sufficient fluency in handwriting (or typing) in primary school, this significantly affects the development of the higher-order processes, such as planning and generating ideas, and writing and reviewing texts.[footnote 182]

These transcription skills should continue to be the focus later for any pupils who lack sufficient fluency. If they struggle with the process of writing as a whole, interventions aimed at writing overall, like asking them to do further extended writing, are likely to be ineffective. Instead, research suggests the focus should be on more time spent practising individually the specific components of writing that need attention.

Spelling

encouraging them to draw on their knowledge of phonics to identify the sounds in more complex words[footnote 190]

relating spellings to the content being taught (rather than teaching spelling from 'decontextualised word lists')[footnote 191]

pre-teaching spellings of challenging words and anticipating common errors[footnote 192]

ensuring that pupils practise spellings, for example by using new spellings in their writing or writing words from dictation[footnote 193]

focusing on a word's etymology to show how spelling is related to meaning and drawing attention to shared morphemes in words, even when the sounds in the related words differ (for example, 'vine' and 'vineyard')[footnote 194]

adding morphemes (where possible) to words in the national curriculum Years 5 and 6 word list to spell many related new words (for example, correspond > correspondence, corresponding, correspondingly, correspondent)[footnote 195]

combining vocabulary development with spelling instruction, including explaining the meaning and function of prefixes and suffixes[footnote 196]

teaching irregular words by grouping these together where there are useful similarities (such as grouping the irregular spelling 'two' with associated regular words such as 'twin', 'twice' and 'twenty')[footnote 197]

Composition

Knowledge of grammar

Pupils need secure knowledge of English grammar for composition. This enables them to express themselves clearly and creatively through writing. The grammatical structures of a text carry much of the writer's intended meaning. Exploring these choices in texts allows the writer to understand the writer's thoughts better.[footnote 200]

Research with secondary school pupils suggests that pupils benefit from being taught how to combine and construct sentences. This not only improves the sentences they write but also improves their writing quality and accuracy.[footnote 201]

The curriculum can therefore be organised so that pupils are taught to write using a variety of sentences. Teaching should focus on sentence recognition, construction, meaning and accuracy. A logical progression might start with the concept of a sentence, including capitalisation and other basic punctuation, before progressing from single main clauses to constructing multi-clause sentences.

For expertise to develop, pupils will benefit from direct instruction and modelling, followed by extensive, deliberate practice until they are fluent. Effective practice may consist of short, focused tasks, interspersed with feedback, before pupils apply what they have learned to their independent writing.[footnote 202]

Research suggests that it can be effective for teachers to focus on the function and application of grammar within the context of writing.[footnote 205] Teaching pupils grammar as part of writing lessons, emphasising the connections between linguistic features and the effects they can produce, can have a positive impact, at least for more able writers.

Vocabulary knowledge

Pupils without a specialised vocabulary for different types of text will struggle to express ideas and opinions in writing.[footnote 206] A broad and deep vocabulary leads to better writing.[footnote 207] Teaching vocabulary is covered in 'Ways of teaching vocabulary' in the reading section.

A curriculum for writing

In practice, teachers can ensure that pupils have knowledge of the world that provides content to write about, for example by ensuring that pupils write about the curriculum content they have studied. Teachers can help pupils to build discourse knowledge by making sure that they understand the characteristics of texts written for specific purposes and audiences, and by providing models of effective writing.[footnote 210] This gives pupils a repertoire of features to draw on for their own writing.

Models of writing development suggest that pupils move through several stages as they become more mature and proficient as writers.[footnote 211] Research highlights the starting points and assumptions of novice writers and how their writing can improve. Pupils need to become increasingly aware of:

how writing can be used to share new interpretations of their ideas

their reader's needs and existing knowledge

how that reader might interpret what they write[footnote 212]

Knowledge of the writing process and how to teach it

Repeated meta-analyses have identified several factors that are positively linked to teaching pupils to write effectively:[footnote 213]

explicit teaching of foundational writing skills (sentence construction and control of grammar and syntax, as well as spelling and handwriting), aiming for fluency

a 'process approach' to writing (see below for an explanation)

direct instruction about writing knowledge and targeted practice

encouraging pupils' self-regulation, such as pupils monitoring their own performance, setting goals for improvement and making self-assessments of their writing

opportunities to write frequently

opportunities to work cooperatively on different aspects of writing and stages of the writing process

A process approach

The process approach involves pupils learning to plan, draft, revise, edit and publish their writing, and practising these processes. This can develop pupils' proficiency.[footnote 214] Eventually, they can apply their knowledge independently.

Research suggests that explicit instruction about writing knowledge and strategies can develop older pupils' writing.[footnote 217] Self-regulated strategy development ( SRSD) is an approach to teaching writing strategies that has been found to be effective in helping pupils learn the specific discourse knowledge needed for effective writing. This knowledge includes general and task-specific writing strategies, the background knowledge needed to use these strategies, and procedures for regulating these strategies.[footnote 218] The 6 stages of SRSD are:

Pupils are taught the background knowledge they need to use a writing strategy effectively.

The teacher explicitly describes and discusses the purpose and benefit of the strategy.

The teacher models how to use the strategy.

Pupils memorise the steps/components of the strategy.

The teacher supports and scaffolds pupils' mastery of the strategy.

Pupils use the strategy independently.

At each stage, pupils have opportunities to learn and practise the main components. This can be particularly effective for less confident writers.[footnote 219] Because the strategies break up the complex process of writing into manageable smaller parts, each of which can be taught, practised and combined, SRSD instruction helps pupils to overcome the limits of their working memory and processing capacities. Research also suggests that these strategies are motivating for young writers, because pupils can write successfully and are likely to attribute their success to something they can control, such as following a specific process or working hard on a task.[footnote 220]

Although discourse knowledge of the features of certain text types and genres of writing is important,[footnote 223] listing the features that pupils must include in a piece of writing can lead to writing to follow mark schemes, as noted in the 'Assessment' section. This might lead to pupils using textual and language features without understanding why they are useful and what purposes they serve.[footnote 224] This might be avoided by emphasising the audience for, and purpose of, the writing and encouraging pupils to tailor their language and structure to these rather than trying to replicate the features of a specific genre or text type.

Motivation

Research suggests that motivation to write, and a classroom and school environment that promotes it, is correlated strongly both with pupils' attitudes to writing and their skill as writers.[footnote 225] Factors associated with motivation include:

writing for real audiences and purposes

writing collaboratively with peers

a choice of topic

the desire to share ideas with an audience[footnote 226]

Motivation can come from enjoying or being engaged with writing itself. It can also come from external factors, such as:

pride in creating a pleasing piece of work

accomplishing something after overcoming difficulty

mastering something that will be important when obtaining qualifications for the workplace

Based on the above, high-quality English may have the following features:

The curriculum secures the knowledge needed for successful writing: knowledge about the topic and knowledge about how to write.

Pupils' accuracy and automaticity in transcription are developed early on and secured by lower key stage 2, so that older pupils are able to pay attention to the higher-level processes of composing, planning, writing and revision.

Pupils write frequently, for a range of audiences and purposes (once they have sufficient accuracy and automaticity in transcription).

Teachers directly teach sentence construction, control of grammar and syntax, so that pupils can use them with accuracy, confidence and increasing flair.

Teachers teach older pupils to master the components of how to plan, draft, revise and edit their writing.

Pedagogical approaches for pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities

The general principles from research into effective teaching outlined in this review are just as relevant for pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities ( SEND), whether learning English or any other subject. Research shows that pupils with SEND do not generally benefit from differentiated teaching, activities or resources to achieve a curriculum goal.[footnote 227] Differentiation is not the same as targeted teaching to break down or reinforce aspects of the curriculum, for example repetition of important phonic knowledge.

Teachers may attribute weaknesses in reading to a pupil having dyslexia rather than having gaps in their phonic knowledge. This can also lead to teachers using reading interventions that have an alternative approach rather than teaching systematic synthetic phonics. However, reading requires the same phonic knowledge for all children. Teachers can help pupils overcome difficulties by ensuring that they learn GPCs; pupils with SEND are highly likely to need much more frequent repetition. Assessment should be used to identify a child's specific knowledge gaps. These gaps and their identification are considered in the 'Assessment' section of this review.

Based on the above, high-quality English may have the following features:

Teaching does not rely on differentiated teaching, activities or resources to achieve a curriculum goal.

Reading interventions incorporate training in knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, and how to apply knowledge of phonics to reading and spelling.

Struggling pupils have more opportunities for repetition where necessary. This can secure essential knowledge to automaticity.

Literature

Summary

An English literature curriculum should identify the knowledge pupils will need to make progress in English literature. Pupils need to learn epistemic knowledge of how critics apply different perspectives as well as knowing about influential readings of specific texts and how interpretations of texts can be reached. Pupils also require contextual and aesthetic knowledge to appreciate a text.

Knowledge can be acquired through studying carefully chosen and sequenced texts that become increasingly complex in style and substantial in content and themes. Studying carefully sequenced texts can gradually increase the knowledge pupils have, which in turn allows them to comprehend new literature. This learning will best be achieved with some explicit teaching and modelling, for example, of different interpretations.

The study of English literature

Literature is at the heart of the subject of English. It has profound effects on our thoughts and on the ways in which we experience the world. It can shape our inner lives, and our identity. Novels provide scope for the exploration of worlds: real and imagined; far and near. Drama can depict intense moral dilemmas, domestic conflicts and powerful moments in history. Poetry, because it works in special ways, can convey heartfelt emotions and epiphanies. Literature also contributes to the big debates in society and to political and social discourse.

The language in literature - the words writers choose and how they use them - can fire our imagination and introduce us to new ways of knowing. The study of literature as a discipline seeks to explain this power.

This section discusses how the content, scope and sequence of the literature curriculum, which is not necessarily specified in the national curriculum, can best enable primary- and secondary-school pupils to achieve the goals of the national curriculum. There is no fixed demarcation between this section and the previous parts of this review that discuss reading comprehension and reading for pleasure. However, this section explores the specific body of knowledge, additional to that already discussed, that enables the disciplinary study of literature.

This part of the review is different in character from other sections because the empirical literature is more limited. We have, however, drawn on a wide and diverse range of sources including opinion pieces and theoretical articles. In some cases, the overarching argument presented in these sources is not fully aligned to the principles of the EIF, but we decided to include them because they are indicative of the highly nuanced nature of the topic. The EIF and the research underpinning it remain the lenses through which the insights and research on literature is considered, framed and presented.

Literary knowledge

As pupils advance through school, the curriculum in English, including literature studies, should include the subject-specific prerequisite knowledge needed for achieving the subject's curriculum goals.

A strong curriculum will develop pupils' epistemic knowledge, defined by the OECD as 'the understanding of how expert practitioners of disciplines work and think'.[footnote 228] Some commentary uses the term 'disciplinary knowledge' to describe a similar idea. Epistemic knowledge helps pupils to 'find the purpose of learning, understand the application of learning and extend their disciplinary knowledge'.[footnote 229] For literature study, this might include learning how critics apply different perspectives (critical positions) to key concepts, as well as knowing about influential readings of specific texts. It also might include knowing that literary scholars and critics use evidence from the text and other relevant contemporaneous texts to justify their interpretations.

This review draws on Atherton, Snapper and Green to define 4 fields of literary knowledge. The following table is an adaptation of the 5 areas of literary knowledge identified by Atherton, Snapper and Green for teaching English literature at 16 to 19. The 4 areas described in the table, and what each covers, focus on those that relate to the EIF and the national curriculum.[footnote 230]

The history and development of literature

This includes: history of literature; literary forms; narrative; genre; poetry; drama; the novel; non-fiction; literary movements; how significant aspects of literature (for example, narrative or character) function in different forms, genres or even other media; how literary texts respond to historical or ethical events; and the relationship between literature and broader social and cultural movements.

The craft of the writer

This includes: how and why writers, including the pupils themselves, use language, form and structure, genre and conventions to respond to social and cultural contexts and respond intertextually to other works.

The response of the reader

This includes: how and why readers, including first and foremost the pupils themselves, respond to, interpret and value texts, balancing personal enjoyment with judgement and understanding of wider social and historical contexts; understanding works of literature in the context of life; and making and judging inferences.

The nature of literary study

This includes: the role of literary study, literary criticism and literary theory; how different approaches and ways of reading impact on what and how we read; how students value the study of literature; how to analyse perceptively, and write and develop their own critical voices in discussion; and the use of context.

The 4 fields above also draw on contextual knowledge, which is transferable between texts. In the case of historical context, this knowledge needs to be carefully selected. For example, pupils studying the Victorian novel may not need an extended preamble on key events in the reign of Queen Victoria. Rather, the specific knowledge that enables pupils to enter the imaginative world of the text should be identified. Historical context for a work of literature is not an end in itself. It might be useful to know that in Victorian times streets were cobbled and richer people travelled in hansom cabs. This knowledge may need to be explicitly taught or it may emerge through the study of the text rather than through teaching before reading.

The fields above also draw on aesthetic knowledge. This knowledge enables appreciation and thus enjoyment of a literary work. For example, knowing that, in Shakespeare's time, a nunnery was also slang for a brothel means that Hamlet's command to Ophelia, 'Get thee to a nunnery', is even more heart-breaking and emotionally charged. Enjoyment and knowledge can grow through text-based conversations, discussions and debates.

Progression in literature through carefully chosen and sequenced texts

Through the study of carefully chosen literature (see the 'Sequencing text choices for progression: building readiness' section), pupils' epistemic knowledge and capacity to appreciate literature can grow over time. For instance, pupils can gain an increasing understanding of the craft of the writer (including the specific language, grammar and syntax used in each text) through studying a carefully chosen sequence of texts over time. They also gain knowledge of the main characters, the plot and the literary techniques employed, and will have a progressively better grasp of the role of the reader and the nature of literature. This allows pupils to make increasingly meaningful connections between specific knowledge from different texts. This could be through a selection of texts that allow pupils to learn how writers use certain tropes in specific genres (for example, entrapment in gothic literature gives pupils a conceptual framework for connecting characters in 'The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' with characters in 'Jane Eyre').

Appreciation of English literature and key components

Our review has identified that there is specific component knowledge needed for comprehension and that novices benefit from learning these components. While pupils might engage meaningfully with unmediated text, it is the purpose of the curriculum to identify what they may need to learn, step by step, to be successful. This is not to say that some key aspects of a literature curriculum that work holistically can never form part of the earlier curriculum while components are still being mastered. For example, the curriculum can include meaningful personal responses to narratives that might be possible even if the components necessary to more fully understand those narratives have not yet been learned. In the very early stages, this form of literary knowledge can be developed by discussing stories that teachers read aloud to children or by asking pupils about how a story read aloud makes them feel.

Standish suggests that pupils can reach a possible 'transitional' point somewhere between late key stage 2 and early key stage 3.[footnote 231] At this point, pupils may have the capacity to understand different interpretations of literature. Teachers might introduce pupils to interpretations of literature that pupils can choose, adapt or reject. This would not be to stifle original interpretations, but to give pupils a useful framework for developing their own interpretations, as well as knowledge of subject-specific terminology.

Novices learn more efficiently by studying worked examples, while experts can learn from inquiry-based activities that allow them to apply their broad conceptual knowledge.[footnote 232] Expertise in English literature is characterised by the ability to carry out critical inquiry, engage in debates about meaning and explore how the text functions as a work of art. However, these practices need to develop over time. This will best be achieved through some explicit teaching and modelling different interpretations (worked examples) and the necessary component knowledge that underpins them.

Pedagogy for novices in literature is different than for experts

There are possible implications of the novice/expert research mentioned in the paragraph above.[footnote 233] If teachers use a purely inquiry-based approach from the start - in which pupils are expected to produce responses to texts with minimal guidance - the potential for success may be limited. For example, pupils may not learn what determines a credible or justifiable interpretation. They may also lack the background knowledge required to produce one.

Implications for pupils' written literary analysis

From their earliest years, children benefit from listening to adults read to them and recount stories verbally. Ongoing reading of carefully chosen and sequenced texts can ensure that pupils learn more about how stories are structured and how plots work. These understandings in turn make pupils better writers as well as readers.

Analytical writing is a composite process that involves multiple individual components, some learned through studying literature and some being explicitly part of the writing curriculum. Pupils need to be able to embed evidence, use appropriate subject terminology, apply precise vocabulary and evaluate interpretations, including their own interpretations. If pupils are to succeed at analytical writing, they need to be secure in each of these components. The curriculum should therefore include a range of subject-appropriate writing activities that require the use of the components for writing that pupils have learned.

Applying insights from cognitive psychology such as spacing and interleaving

Tharby suggests that insights from cognitive psychology can be used to ensure that pupils learn the literature curriculum and that this will allow them to appreciate that 'literature is a beautiful, throbbing nexus, not a set of unrelated texts'.[footnote 234] He qualifies this, stating that he has 'deep misgivings... about a crude scientific application' of cognitive psychology to curriculum planning. He suggests that the literature curriculum should be structured so that carefully selected content is revisited. He advocates spacing and interleaving content in literature to create a spiral-structured curriculum.

Some research suggests that spacing and interleaving might be useful for structuring some content in the literature curriculum. Appel and Richter show that some subject-specific 'habits of mind' that come from reading fictional narratives, such as empathy, do not present themselves immediately.[footnote 235] This pause before the results show is known as an 'absolute sleeper effect'. For sleeper effects to occur, a gestation period is required. In this time, pupils can rethink and relive what they have read. Spending some time on unrelated activities can be beneficial.

Elliott suggests that interleaving might help pupils make connections between 'texts and concepts, to create a larger schema of how literature works'.[footnote 236] She adds the caveat that 'like all tools, they are not good in and of themselves: it is the content that makes the difference'.

Sequencing text choices for progression: building readiness

We have already explored text choices in the reading comprehension section (see 'Text complexity and progression in reading comprehension'), but there is additional detail that is especially relevant when selecting texts specifically for English literature, which is explored below. Additionally:[footnote 237]

It is important to recognise that the books students read and study in school are finite - a scarce and valuable resource... these few books form the foundation of their knowledge of how literature works within and interacts with society, so teachers must select them like the precious resource they are.

Over time, texts studied should become increasingly complex in style and substantial in content and themes. In the 'Literary knowledge' section, we identify the range of knowledge pupils need to comprehend a text. Quality literary narratives tend to use a greater variety of sentence structures than simpler, easier narratives. This is important because it enables pupils to gain important grammatical knowledge that they can use in their own writing. It also builds 'readiness' for the complex syntax used in 19th-century narratives that are studied in key stage 4. Therefore, text selection is not as simple as moving more archaic texts or texts with adult themes to key stages 2 or 3. If pupils are required to read texts but do not have the knowledge they need to read fluently and understand them, whatever the ambition, pupils will not gain the hoped-for outcomes from reading those texts.

Texts may be chosen because they prepare pupils for later texts that they will study or writers they will encounter. Counsell calls this 'curriculum readiness' and argues:[footnote 238]

We need to take seriously the possibility that a curriculum can turn (say) a disadvantaged, vocab-poor Year 5 into a pupil who carries such reference points in poetry that they are ready to notice what is new and startling in (say) Romantic poetry before they hit Year 10.

Stoneman describes this readiness as 'deliberate crafting' in which 'we help knowledge to manifest itself indirectly but dynamically in future learning of other curricular content'.[footnote 239] It is very different from GCSE texts being taught in key stage 3. This would narrow the curriculum rather than create readiness for those texts when they are studied at GCSE.

An example of text choice for curriculum readiness might be reading 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time' to create readiness for Perkins Gilman's novella, 'The Yellow Wallpaper', because one is more accessible than the other but both use unreliable narrators. Building readiness is not solely about themes and content of texts.

A coherent sequence of texts

In the section above, we discuss the importance of sequencing carefully selected literature texts so that they are increasingly complex in style and substantial in content and themes. Through the study of carefully chosen literature, teachers can develop pupils' epistemic knowledge so that their capacity to appreciate literature can grow over time. Therefore, as well as text complexity being a criterion for selecting individual texts, the sequence of these over time can enable a coherent progression.

Didau explores different curriculum possibilities that provide coherence.[footnote 240] For example, he suggests choosing texts that illustrate the development of English language or texts that illustrate the story of literature and its forms over time. Alternatively, a thematic approach might be chosen that weaves the threads of metaphor, story, argument, pattern, grammar and context as enablers of disciplinary considerations for pupils learning literature. Didau does not argue for any one of the models above but suggests that coherent text choices will allow pupils to appreciate past literature.

Studying complex and whole texts

Studying one substantial complex text can do a lot of curricular 'heavy lifting'. It can support pupils to develop and use knowledge across the categories detailed in this section. A text like this might use a complex narrative viewpoint to tell a story, and explore multiple or sophisticated themes. It might also contain allusions, cultural references and intertextual links.

In some circumstances, carefully chosen extracts from literary texts can have a purpose in the curriculum. However, there is research that suggests that whole texts read aloud and at a faster pace than usual (as opposed to extracts) are important, including for weaker readers. Research by the University of Sussex with 343 pupils aged 12 to 14 in 10 schools found that weaker readers made 16 months' progress in reading comprehension when they read 2 challenging novels in class in 12 weeks.[footnote 241]

There are other disciplinary-focused arguments for the study of whole texts. Sehgal Cuthbert suggests that, as the reader works their way through a whole work of literature, meaning is built up and layered and their responses evolve.[footnote 242] In addition, some specific forms of the novel need to be read in their entirety for the form to realise its intention. For example, the Bildungsroman, which aims to show the development of the protagonist's mind and character from childhood through to adulthood, needs to be read as a whole to achieve that aim.

A disciplinary-based approach to relevancy

According to Applebee, a focus on relevance has led to curriculum inequity, where only advantaged pupils get the chance to read texts that are distanced from their reality.[footnote 246] This has led to the narrowing of the literature curriculum for some groups of pupils, who only access texts that reflect their own lives rather than different times or settings. Some types of literature can provide knowledge of other times and places that, in turn, helps pupils to comprehend texts. Additionally, reading more literature from other times, places and cultures can enable pupils to both develop and expand what they might consider meaningful to them.

A range of perspectives

Teachers and critics advocate a greater range of perspectives in the choices of literature that pupils study.[footnote 247] It is beneficial for pupils to see people similar to them represented as the heroes and protagonists in the books they read.

However, ideas about writers' intentions can be over-simplified if they are viewed solely through the prism of our current political landscape or contemporary issues. This can also lead to reductionist interpretations: readings that fail to do justice to the many layers within the text and their meanings. It can also lead to significant, influential texts being removed from the curriculum or texts being included only because they address contemporary issues rather than due to literary merit.

Within the aims of the national curriculum, any rationale for choosing texts should be based on the knowledge, practices and traditions of the subject itself. Other purposes, for example learning about a particular contemporary social issue, such as 'homelessness' or 'social media shaming', should take a back seat to literary merit.

It may be useful for teachers and leaders to develop a set of criteria for choosing texts. Didau suggests questions to consider when choosing a text that include notions such as:[footnote 248]

an entitlement to read certain texts

whether texts have been read already

the extent to which texts introduce pupils to new knowledge

whether the text offers a genuine variety of voices and perspectives (including older, less popular voices)

whether the text has 'conversations' backwards and forwards with other texts

Based on the above, high-quality English may have the following features:

The curriculum has been designed to develop in pupils a genuine love of literature, and an ability to respond to texts personally.

The curriculum has been designed to enable pupils to deepen their understanding in the 4 domains or fields of knowledge in literature, and to apply the key concepts from each field using disciplinary methods in their writing.

The curriculum includes a range of ambitious whole texts in different forms and genres, which have been carefully chosen using subject-specific criteria.

Over time, teachers build pupils' 'readiness' for future encounters with texts and critical views. They do this in a meaningful way so as not to narrow the literature curriculum.

Teachers introduce pupils to texts that they would not choose to read for themselves, especially from other times and places and with a range of perspectives.

Assessment

Summary

This section outlines how formative assessment can allow teachers to assess pupils' knowledge and plan next steps. Feedback should be specific, challenging and related to the learning goals. Success criteria can be useful but do have their pitfalls. Similarly, problems can arise when mark schemes designed for summative assessment are used in place of a curriculum that identifies the range of knowledge pupils need for success in each written task. Multi-tiered systems can assess difficulties that pupils have with reading.

Formative assessment

Effective feedback for teachers

Effective formative assessment will allow the teacher to identify gaps in pupils' component knowledge and adjust the curriculum and pedagogy to take account of these. However, grade descriptors created for summative purposes may not function effectively to provide formative feedback for teachers. For example, grade descriptors probably will not allow the teacher to assess whether pupils had the specific knowledge of vocabulary and context that would allow them to comprehend a text.[footnote 251]

More useful formative tasks could ask pupils a series of questions on a particular section or aspect of a text or include specific practice activities, focused on areas where pupils need to improve, such as specific spellings or learning to use particular punctuation, embed a quotation or conclude an essay. The narrow focus in these tasks means that the teacher can identify precise knowledge gaps and misapprehensions.

Effective feedback for pupils

Research suggests that feedback should be immediate and precise when pupils are learning new knowledge and skills in order to prevent them from making errors and developing misconceptions.[footnote 259] For example, when pupils are learning how to embed examples in text through practice activities, teachers should give them instant verbal feedback that focuses on accuracy.

There is an important balance to be drawn here: the immediacy and frequency of feedback should be dependent on the stage of instruction and the pupil's level of expertise.

Success criteria

Sharing learning intentions and success criteria are common ways that teachers draw pupils' attention to what they need to learn. For example, if pupils are learning to punctuate direct speech, it is useful if they know what they should be able to do by the end of the lesson. It is helpful to use a worked example to draw attention to specific features before using those features as success criteria for pupils' own writing. For example, teachers could discuss the features of a persuasive letter, before using those features as success criteria for pupils' own writing.

However, there are a number of possible pitfalls when using success criteria. It can be unhelpful to give different pupils in the class different success criteria. This may result in pupils doing different tasks that require them to have been previously taught different component knowledge. This in-class differentiation has also generally not been shown to have much impact on pupils' attainment.[footnote 262]

Pupils need to understand the success criteria used to judge their work, but this can be problematic. Some approaches that are designed to avoid this problem, such as extended writing, can 'oversimplify the complexity of a good piece of writing'.[footnote 263] Marshall and Wiliam argue that this runs the risk of pupils following a rule or formula at the expense of meaning and writing becoming formulaic. Similarly, a learning intention such as 'To use the features of an effective story opening' is likely to be too broad for pupils to understand what a successful opening might look like. Success criteria amount to maxims that can only make sense to pupils who have enough expertise to appreciate how they can be applied.

Teachers and pupils might 'co-construct' success criteria derived from worked examples. However, this is not entirely straightforward. Since the teacher knows more about the subject than the pupils, the teacher would be abdicating their responsibilities to 'let whatever the students feel should be valued be adopted as learning intentions'.[footnote 264]

Alternatives to written feedback and marking

Written feedback can be time-consuming for teachers. There is also a risk that the pupils might not read feedback, or that they might not be able to understand it or act on it independently.[footnote 265]

Assessment of learning: summative assessment

Internal summative assessments allow schools to measure standards, see how effective teaching and the curriculum are across year groups, report to parents, and monitor pupils' progress and wider outcomes. It is crucial that schools are aware of the limits to the inferences that can be drawn from summative assessments, which check performance in complex tasks rather than the component knowledge necessary for success.

Reliability and validity of summative assessment of writing

The validity of assessment is an issue when using criterion-referenced assessments, where writing is assessed against a set of criteria describing particular levels of performance. Scoring rubrics with lists of criteria can be limiting, effectively narrowing the concept of quality and excluding legitimate responses that fall outside the descriptors.[footnote 271]

Problems with using mark scheme criteria as a progression model

Progression in English, as outlined in the curriculum section, depends on far more than just knowing how to approach test or examination questions. Mark scheme levels typically describe differences in the quality of final written outcomes that pupils produce. Mark schemes do not identify the range of curriculum content that pupils need to learn incrementally to succeed in the specific written tasks they are set. Therefore, treating examination mark schemes as the curriculum for pupils to master (that is, as a 'progression model') will mean that pupils may not acquire the very prior knowledge they need for final summative assessments.

Assessing reading

Word reading (decoding) and comprehension, the 2 aspects of reading discussed earlier (in 'The early English curriculum in schools' section) require different types of assessment to ensure validity.

Pupils' reading may be assessed through available standardised tests. However, these are not necessarily as effective as diagnostic tools.[footnote 274] One implication that the importance of prior knowledge has for reading comprehension assessments is that pupils' background knowledge of the topic being tested can vary and this can affect scores. This is because pupils' relevant prior knowledge is the most significant factor in successful reading comprehension. Difficulties with decoding are another possible explanation of why pupils might struggle to read a text. Standardised tests do not generally identify the reasons for pupils' reading difficulties.

Based on the above, high-quality English may have the following features:

The curriculum breaks learning down into component parts, which are assessed formatively. This enables teachers to identify precisely pupils' misconceptions, gaps and errors. Teachers use information from this assessment to adapt the curriculum.

Feedback to pupils is specific and provides them with a 'recipe for future action'.

Low-stakes assessment of knowledge and retrieval tasks are also used to improve pupils' retention of the content.

A multi-tiered approach to assessing reading problems leads to accurate identification and diagnosis of difficulties and pupils receive targeted support.

Teaching focuses on building pupils' prerequisite knowledge rather than on practice for answering examination questions.

Systems at subject and school level

Summary

The leadership roles of senior and middle leaders in primary schools are critical in ensuring that all pupils learn to read. Teachers' content knowledge in English is fundamental to pupils' progress. Continuing professional development (CPD) should be relevant to teachers' specific needs and capabilities, but it must also ensure that they understand the rationale for what they are being asked to learn.

Leadership

Leadership of English begins with primary school headteachers making sure that the youngest pupils grasp the basic knowledge and skills of reading. This will include a complete programme for, and resources to support, the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics.

Senior leaders cannot, of course, be expert in every aspect of curriculum.[footnote 279] Middle leaders - subject leads in primary schools and heads of department in secondary schools - therefore play an important role in ensuring positive outcomes for pupils and developing the knowledge and practice of other teachers.[footnote 280] However, their effectiveness depends on their knowledge of the subject and of effective pedagogy, and the extent to which they have autonomy and control over the curriculum, drawing on their subject expertise.[footnote 281] Senior leaders need to give them this autonomy as part of the school's shared vision and accountability framework for English.[footnote 282]

Continuing professional development

A study by Coe and others reviewed existing research and identified 4 'dimensions' that teachers need in order to understand the content of a subject and how it is learned:[footnote 283]

deep and fluent knowledge and flexible understanding of the content you are teaching

knowing the requirements of curriculum sequencing and dependencies in relation to the content and ideas you are teaching

knowing the relevant curriculum tasks, assessments and activities

knowing pupils' misconceptions and sticking points

Teachers' professional learning is most effective when the content and the activities are directed towards the needs and existing capabilities of teachers.[footnote 284]

There is some evidence that a fortnightly to monthly rhythm of CPD sessions and/or support may be most effective in improving teachers' knowledge.[footnote 285]

Based on the above, high-quality English may have the following features:

In the early years and key stage 1, leaders prioritise the expert teaching of systematic synthetic phonics.

Regular, subject-specific CPD focuses on improving disciplinary and pedagogical content knowledge.

Conclusion

This review shows how curriculum content and sequencing, as well as subject-specific pedagogy, best enable pupils to achieve the national curriculum aims for English. Our review has identified some themes that relate to an effective English curriculum.

Strong foundational knowledge for reading, writing and spoken language are essential aspects of the early years curriculum

Automaticity in the basics of reading and writing early on enables pupils to rise to the challenges of an ambitious curriculum. It is critical that young children achieve both accuracy and speed in reading. Effective communication through writing depends on younger pupils developing foundational transcription skills (spelling and handwriting). Alongside this, they should develop knowledge of the world around them from stories and talking with adults. For both reading and writing, repeated practice is key to gaining proficiency.

Vocabulary is fundamental to pupils' progress

Vocabulary is the foundational knowledge for reading, speech and writing. Narrowing the word gap between pupils who are word-rich and word-poor is vital. Vocabulary development and wider language development feed into reading and writing. Adults' engagement in dialogue with young children supports their language development. Sharing books and stories introduces not only a wider, deeper range of vocabulary than is found in speech, but also shows how the meaning of words is context-dependent.

An effective reading curriculum ensures that pupils read large amounts of text and it focuses on providing pupils with the knowledge they need for comprehension

Once pupils have secured the basics of reading, they can develop skilled reading through a curriculum that includes exposure to large amounts of text and progressively more complex text. Teachers explicitly introduce the specific knowledge to pupils needed for comprehension. Over-simplistic approaches to reading (such as comprehension skills like summarising, drawing inferences or making predictions) do not work in isolation.

There can be unhelpful confusion about the term 'background knowledge'. It is often used quite narrowly and excludes vital syntactical lexical and literary knowledge. Research suggests that 'explicitly teaching background knowledge should be considered foundational to increasing competency in reading'.[footnote 286] Pupils benefit from exposure to background knowledge in a specific and sequenced way.

A reading curriculum is supported by the careful choice of increasingly challenging texts

The focus on literature-rich texts in the curriculum starts with sharing stories and rhymes at home before children start school. Throughout the curriculum, the choice of texts studied is critically important. An effective English curriculum will feature increasingly challenging texts at each stage. Different factors contribute to the challenge of a text. A clear understanding of this enables the construction of a curriculum that builds readiness for future reading. Pupils are likely to benefit from opportunities to read whole texts.

Carefully selected knowledge of literary studies is needed for pupils to make meaningful interpretations in keeping with the disciplinary tradition of literature. In a strong literature curriculum, this knowledge will be skilfully combined with aesthetic, epistemic and contextual knowledge.

The English curriculum for novices is structured differently in many aspects from the curriculum for experts

Different approaches to teaching may be more or less appropriate depending on pupils' level of expertise. Novices are likely to learn more effectively through direct instruction where they are 'explicitly shown what to do and how to do it'. Once they have gained this knowledge, they can apply it to future tasks.

Finally, teachers should be aware that novices may be less able to successfully produce their own meaningful responses without guidance. Securing foundational knowledge is a prerequisite. Once secure, teachers should carefully design more complex tasks so that pupils can attempt these successfully and without developing misconceptions. There is strong evidence for the value of using worked examples with novice learners. The idea of scaffolding has also been proven to guide instruction and reduce cognitive load.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than any other subject, English - and especially reading - gives pupils access to the rest of the curriculum and is fundamental to their educational success. This is why the introduction to the national curriculum says: 'Fluency in the English language is an essential foundation for success in all subjects'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
' All writing must be on the line. All handwriting must be the correct size and not too big or too small. All handwriting must be joined up where appropriate. To be awarded a pen licence, the child MUST produce at least a week's worth of work in their literacy book that fulfils all of the criteria above. '

And don't forget...

How do you feel reading this?

Would you qualify for a licence? Would you get to keep it?

Are these realistic expectations?

What unconscious messages are being transmitted?

How do you think children feel about their ability to 'pass the pen test'?

ALL children.

How might teachers feel having to implement this kind of policy?

So many questions... sorry!

Of course children who acquire fine motor skills relatively easily and whose visual perception allows them to navigate lines effectively will be fine. But they would be anyway and that's by no means the experience for many children.

I think we need to talk about pen licences.

I'm fascinated. As I read the above examples (and many others scattered across the internet), I felt a surprisingly powerful wave of emotion wash over me and my fingers actually began to tingle! Here's what came to my mind:

If your handwriting does not meet the criteria...

'Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go! Do not collect £200.'

You'll be fitted with a tag on release; if you re-offend, your pen privilege will be revoked and you will be sent straight back to Pencil-ville Prison (see my word play on Pentonville Prison?)

It might sound a little dramatic but haha, that's what surfaced! The frequency transmitted from the policies felt loaded... so heavy and full of judgement.

Maybe I've just heard too many stories about the damaging and long-lasting negative impact on those who were last in class to get their pen licence or indeed never did.

Maybe I've felt too much distress and anger during conversations with parents who have seen their child's self-esteem plummet when they are not deemed worthy of the right to write in pen. When they see their child lose hope, feel ashamed and embarrassed.

Maybe I'm too aware that the teaching of handwriting is often not really understood or delivered effectively so it's impossible for some children to achieve these demands.

Maybe my brain has encoded the concept as something that has an unwitting potential to threaten or hurt and a protective instinct kicks in.

Who knows?

Whatever the reason, I felt strongly as I read.

I feel strongly. About pen licences. I don't like them. I don't think they are necessary and I believe the damage potential far outweighs the benefit of motivation potential.

I know opinion is divided and why... so let's talk about it.

If you feel they're a good thing (or are indifferent) would you be open-minded to considering an alternative opinion? We can always agree to disagree.

The longer I work with people around handwriting, the more I come to understand just how deeply emotions are connected, felt and remain. My client work becomes about so much more than how letters look on a page. In my experience, when pen licences come up they frequently trigger an outpouring of angst or anger.

Before continuing I probably ought to clarify what a pen licence is!

It's usually a certificate or wallet-sized card (similar to a driving licence) used by some schools - still many schools, judging by a quick search on Google - to incentivise pupils and mark their transition from writing in pencil to pen.

It's a very public comparative judgement. While the certificate itself may travel to the relative privacy of a fridge, bedroom wall, drawer or bin, the day-to-day writing implement permitted serves as a daily reminder and mark of that judgement.

I have to be honest, when I asked on Twitter how people felt about 'pen licences' a week before writing this article, I wasn't expecting so many to vote:

One of my favourite quotes comes from German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: 'There are no facts, only interpretations'.

So let's consider the interpretations of good, bad and indifferent.
About 400 people (15%) thought pen licences were good.
" My class love them! I introduced them this term and the children have responded so positively. Handwriting has really improved. "

This is the kind of comment I sometimes hear. It doesn't surprise me and I get it. Children generally love challenges and the prospect of reward and recognition. A pen licence is a carrot being dangled in front of them as motivation and inspiration.

To this end it will initially activate the Reticular Activating System (RAS). The RAS operates as a filter for what should be processed and prioritised.

To begin with everyone appears motivated. Improvement is apparent as attention is focused. As time goes by though, as some children achieve but others don't, as attention inevitably moves on to other things (the teacher's as well as the child's), the carrot too often remains out of reach. Particularly if teaching and feedback isn't specific and delivered systematically, consistently and with understanding of all that's involved in the learning process for handwriting. Cognitive overload related to tasks and time demands can often see children stuck, unable to affect change and with feelings of failure, frustration and disappointment.

Still I do understand why some people might see the model as a good one though:
About 1400 people (52%) felt pen licences were bad.
" Max was last in his class to get his pen licence. He went from loving school to not wanting to go in and the very thought of writing made him angry. It made me angry. We were told handwriting improvement would just come if he practised. But it didn't. Handwriting became a four-letter word in our household. I felt we were completely let down. " - Parent

I can understand why people see the model as bad ( and include my own perspectives here):

the model misses the point - pens are writing implements; how are children going to learn to use them effectively if they don't have an opportunity to let their eyes, brain and hand adjust and coordinate to sensory feedback that is different to that from a pencil. You shouldn't have to 'earn' the right or be 'awarded' them; they're tools of the trade of handwriting

About 900 people (33%) were indifferent about pen licences.
I can understand this. If you've never had any particularly positive or negative experiences around the concept the chances are it's not been on your radar to consider. It was good of you to even vote to be honest. If you're indifferent I'm guessing it seems like it could be a good idea on the face of it but you're open to recognising it might not be for everyone?

Maybe your opinions have shifted a little after reading.

I'm grateful to everyone for taking the time to read and reflect.

Please come and talk to me about it. Whether we agree or not, I'd love to hear your experiences and opinions.

You can find me on Twitter... @nicky_parr

or email nicky@betterhandwritten.com

or use the Contact Form at www.betterhandwritten.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
' All writing must be on the line. All handwriting must be the correct size and not too big or too small. All handwriting must be joined up where appropriate. To be awarded a pen licence , the child MUST produce at least a week's worth of work in their literacy book that fulfils all of the criteria above.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the age of computers, many parents and teachers ask why handwriting remains important.

There are two key reasons why: the first is that automaticity in handwriting helps us write better content; and the second is that handwriting helps us to learn what we write.

Children need to achieve automaticity in their letter production. Automaticity is being able to write and create letters without needing to think about the act of writing the letters themselves - instead, we're able to give cognitive attention to the content of what we're writing.

You can watch our series of handwriting tutorials here

If children are not automatic in their letter production, it interferes with their ability to compose written text and this will affect their learning right across the curriculum, throughout their school lives.

Being able to produce letters automatically frees children to write what they need to write across the whole curriculum. It is much more important than neatness.

Improving handwriting

Handwriting also helps some aspects of learning in ways typing doesn't. Writing letters by hand helps young learners to develop their phonological awareness and phonics skills.

For older children, the act of writing notes by hand helps fix ideas in their minds, with studies showing better recall of information when it's been handwritten, rather than typed.

As we write by hand, we select the key information and process that information. Typing makes it easier just to record a "script" - without processing the information.

Despite this, a survey conducted last year by Berol and Paper Mate as part of the Write Your Future Campaign showed that a third of teachers (31 per cent) spent less than 30 minutes teaching handwriting each week. It is vital to make the most of this time and to check that children produce the right letter movements.

So, what can be done to boost children's handwriting?

1. Start with a name

Start handwriting with the letters that matter most: those in the child's own name. Early years teachers have put out laminated name cards and found nursery and Reception children loved tracing, copying, decorating and naming the letters in their names again and again.

2. Practise letter movements

The correct letter movement is what counts, not just producing a neat letter. Children get better at producing letters by practising letter movements: big letters on walls; little letters in shaving foam; letters in sand, jelly and on paper. Rainbow letters with several colours and random patterns of letters are all good practice. Practise saying letter names with the letter movement to build that association. Watch your children write and check their movements, not their neatness.

The same is true of joins between letters. If children learn the correct movements for basic joins, they will use them efficiently.

3. Plan handwriting into every day

Every topic can accommodate a little chance to practise writing. Incorporate handwriting practice into each and every day for beginner and more experienced handwriters. For example, ask young children to "sign in" on the register rather than taking the register verbally each morning, even when you can't read the finished signature. Dramatic play areas can include short writing opportunities like taking orders in the restaurantor filling in forms in shops. For older writers, build in regular practice time and vary the content.

4. Cover handwriting little and often

For more experienced writers, five minutes of handwriting practice a day is better than one 25-minute session per week. Demonstrate letter formations and joins, but don't just spend handwriting time "copying" lines of letters. Use letter dice or spinners to generate random sequences of letters and practise these. This activity really improves letter production. A handwriting "blast" to see how many times children can write each combination of letters in 20 seconds is a fun way to build automaticity.

5. Play with the senses and provide visual aids

Support familiarity with the motor skills of letter formation through setting practice exercises in different ways. Try getting children to write letters with their eyes closed. You can get them to practise on different surfaces, such as writing with chalk on the playground or in the mud with a stick. You can also support the visual awareness and spatial recognition required for handwriting by providing different types, colours, textures and shapes of paper.

6. Reward all writing

Children need to build confidence in their writing ability; make sure you nurture this early on with positive feedback and rewards. Encourage young scribblers, who are learning how pens, pencils, chalks and crayons "feel". Display writing on a wall that reflects good effort or achievement. Respond to the content of what children write to send the message that writing is important. Build positive feelings about the act of writing, wanting to write and, through this, learning how to control a pencil (or chalk, pen,or paintbrush).

Dr Jane Medwell is a leading academic in the field of handwriting and literacy and director of postgraduate research at the University of Nottingham. Dr Medwell works with the Write Your Future Campaign - created to champion the importance of handwriting

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six ways to boost children’s handwriting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Handwriting is crucial both for learning and for writing better content – so we need to value it in schools, argues this academic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's no surprise that as technology has become increasingly integrated into our daily lives the traditional act of writing with a pen has been somewhat forgotten. The ease of word processing documents, as well as the development of applications that allow us to sync our notes across multiple devices, has made the purpose of handwriting almost redundant

However, the act of writing should not be forgotten and aside from its charm for certain tasks it still has much more utility than it is often given credit for. In many ways, handwriting is still less restrictive than its digital counterpart and has many advantages both functionally and creatively. Additionally, there is another important point that handwriting still forms a unique part of our culture and identity that we should not forego so easily. It is with this in mind that we decided to look at the place of handwriting in the digital age, with the hope of sparking a discussion about its importance during this time:

The Educational Benefit

Handwriting still forms an integral part of our education system due to the fact that the majority of our examinations are still handwritten. Therefore, it still serves as a very functional skill and students who are not able to write legibly and articulately place themselves at a severe disadvantage to those who can. This means that despite the incorporation of technology such as iPads into the classroom, focus should still be placed on students' ability to write without the help of technology.

Handwriting Has Many Cognitive Benefits

Writing notes by hand has many cognitive benefits. Handwriting reinforces our reading and language processing skills. Writing by hand allows time to slow down the thought process enabling the writer to think about the words, how they are spelt and the structure of the writing; all making the writer more adept at the language they are using.

Handwriting can also improve our memory. Whilst it has been argued that typing notes at the time may allow us to focus more on what we are actually listening to, research has found that writing creates unique pathways in the brain causing those who wrote their notes by hand to remember the content more than those who typed them.

Handwriting Has Many Benefits for Creative Writing

The physical act of writing can also have other benefits in particular with creative writing. Patrick McClean wrote a wonderful article in which he defended his love of longhand, despite the obvious advantages of technology. McClean argued that writing with pen and paper helps to rid you of the distractions of the digital world. He said that when typing there can be a tendency to edit as you go along rather than letting your ideas flow. This can be counterproductive for the creative process. With a blank piece of paper you tend to just write, get your ideas onto paper and leave the editing process until later.

Handwriting Is Less Restrictive

On the other hand, pen and paper can allow you to think more freely when doing things such as brainstorming. You have a blank page, a pen, and no restrictions as to where you can write, allowing you to link things together, circle important points and add side notes wherever makes sense. Many will argue that this can now be done on a computer, but as mentioned before the distractions introduced with a computer or tablet can often interrupt your creative flow.

It Forms Part of Our Culture

Finally there is another, but no less important, point that writing forms a unique and irreplaceable part of our culture. This is particularly the case for written languages made up of characters such as Mandarin but also for letters in English. Handwriting styles are unique to the individual and something which simply cannot be replicated with a keyboard.

Don't believe us? Here's what some leading experts had to say on the importance of handwriting:

The National Handwriting Association raises awareness of handwriting as a crucial component of literacy and aim to promote and foster good practice in the teaching of handwriting. Gwen Dorman had this to say on the importance of handwriting:
"The ability to write is traditionally closely linked with the ability to read in the development of literacy in children, the one fostering the other. (There have been insufficient children who have learned to write using only a keyboard to disprove this interrelation). In primary schools in this country much of the writing performed in class is written with a pen or pencil and the assessment of a child's ability is largely through the medium of writing. In secondary and further education some examinations are still written by hand. To be unable to write legibly and quickly is therefore a disadvantage that limits a child's educational progress as well as having a negative effect on self-esteem."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why is handwriting still important in the digital age?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's no surprise that as technology has become increasingly integrated into our daily lives the traditional act of writing with a pen has been somewhat forgotten.

# data[].attributes.body
OFSTED Research review series: English Published 23 May 2022
Handwriting

The national curriculum specifies that children should be taught to correctly form letters of the correct size and orientation.[footnote 70] This requires effort and attention, as well as suitable motor skills. There is evidence that repeated practice in handwriting is necessary to go beyond accuracy to fluency in letter formation.[footnote 71] There is no need to start the formal teaching of handwriting before Reception, but children at the end of the EYFS should be able to ‘hold a pencil effectively in preparation for fluent writing – using the tripod grip in almost all cases’.[footnote 72]


The national curriculum requires children to learn unjoined handwriting before they ‘start using some of the diagonal and horizontal strokes that are needed to join letters’.[footnote 73] Delaying teaching joined handwriting gives teachers and children time to focus on other aspects of the writing process, such as composition, spelling and forming letters correctly.


Research supports the idea that writing letters may be important for supporting children’s early reading development, because it stimulates the areas of the brain known to underpin successful reading. A small study with 4- to 5-year-olds showed that practice in writing letters ‘stroke by stroke’ may be the ‘gateway’ through which beginning readers learn to recognise the features of each letter, as well as learning which features are not important.[footnote 74]


There is also evidence that repeated practice in handwriting, going beyond accuracy to fluency, leads to success in higher-level writing tasks.[footnote 75] Skilful handwriting has an impact on composition. According to 2 meta-analyses of research on handwriting instruction, teaching handwriting is closely associated with the quality, length and fluency of writing.[footnote 76] As these meta-analyses showed, teaching handwriting can improve writing because the pupil can spend more time planning, thinking about content and constructing the sentences.

 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we’ll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click ‘Customise Cookies’ to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retrieval Practice: Research & Resources for every classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy Retrieval Practice: Research & Resources for every classroom by Kate Jones (ISBN: 9781912906581) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Powerful Teaching: Unleash the Science of Learning | SXSW EDU 2022

# data[].attributes.body
OFSTED Research review series: English Published 23 May 2022
Spelling

When young children are taught phonics, they learn the alphabetic code for spelling (encoding) as well as for reading (decoding). This is why spelling and decoding have been referred to as ‘reversible processes’.[footnote 65] Reading involves blending the individual sounds of a word to say the whole word, while spelling requires the writer to segment a whole word into its individual sounds (phonemes) and to identify what they are.


As well as the skill of segmenting, children need to know which graphemes can represent the separate phonemes they have identified in the word they want to spell. They also need to know how to spell what the national curriculum refers to as ‘common exception words’, so called because their GPCs are unusual or have not yet been taught.[footnote 66]


Knowing how to spell a word ‘makes the representation of it sturdy and accessible for fluent reading’.[footnote 67] This is because spelling and reading call on the same representation – that is, the order of the letters that make up the word.


The Department for Education’s non-statutory curriculum guidance for the early years, ‘Development matters’, suggests that teachers of Reception-age children should dictate sentences for children to write that contain only the taught letter-to-sound correspondences.[footnote 68] Similarly, the Year 1 national curriculum programme of study requires pupils to write down dictated sentences using ‘the GPCs and common exception words taught so far’.[footnote 69]


Dictation gives children opportunities to practise and apply their spelling knowledge and segmenting skills, without having to compose sentences by themselves. It requires them to distinguish between the sounds they hear in order to choose the correct graphemes to represent the sounds and to form the letters correctly. They also have to understand what they are hearing to distinguish between homophones (for example, ‘to’/‘two’ and ‘meat’/‘meet’).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our members enable us to produce quality resources like these and every membership contributes to our important work of improving literacy education for all. If you value this resource please consider supporting the work of the Association by joining us.
Find out more about becoming a UKLA member.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our members enable us to produce quality resources like these and every membership contributes to our important work of improving literacy education for all. If you value this resource please consider supporting the work of the Association by joining us. Find out more about becoming a UKLA member.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Heather Fearn and Jonathan Keay, Her Majesty's Inspectors from Ofsted's curriculum team, discuss some key points about what primary subject leaders (especially small primary schools) can expect from deep dives. This blog builds on our previous blog about the simple focus of deep dives.

Do leaders of a subject need to be specialists?

In primary schools, particularly small ones, we know that staff wear lots of hats. In small schools, it may be the headteacher who oversees all subjects. It often isn't possible or realistic to develop detailed expertise in multiple subject areas - neither do we expect you to. What is important is that, as a collective, staff give careful thought to the content they want pupils to be taught and to remember.

To overcome the challenges of expertise in multiple curriculum areas, lots of schools work with other local schools to design their curriculum. Schools also make use of schemes of work that are developed by subject specialists. Ofsted does not consider it necessary for schools to design their curriculums themselves. Whatever it is you do, it hasn't got to be all singing and dancing. Your curriculum just needs to be ambitious and coherent.

What about small primary schools?

In a typical year, Ofsted inspects around 1,300 primaries.

Our inspectors will be aware of the impact of an inspection visit on teachers in a small school. Right from the first contact with the school, our lead inspectors will work with the headteacher to organise the inspection to manage the demands on each teacher.

We also know that small schools won't necessarily have the capacity to provide the same resources and experiences as larger schools. That is why the deep dive will focus on what matters most for the quality of each pupil's education: whether pupils are learning the knowledge they need to achieve the goals of their education.

What will we talk to leaders of a subject about?

We're likely to want to talk to whoever leads a subject as close to the start of a deep dive as possible. This helps us have a sense of the 'big picture'. We'll understand if the subject isn't an area of specialism for you. What matters most is what you want pupils to learn and why. We don't have any expectations about what paperwork schools provide and you can bring any notes you might wish to refer to during the discussion. It is up to you how you record and set out your curriculum expectations. We'll ask questions and consider things like:

Does the subject curriculum match the scope and ambition of the national curriculum?

Are there clear end points? Can we see how content is broken down into manageable chunks to build towards those end points?

Are the identified chunks logically sequenced? Do they prepare pupils for the learning that is to come?

After exploring the overarching curriculum content with questions like the ones above, we'll explore how you choose to teach and assess the content. During the discussion, we're also likely to ask specifically about any lessons we are able to see as part of the deep dive. This helps us see your intended curriculum in action. We'll hopefully be able to see the chunks we talked about being taught and practised. We'll start to understand how well pupils are remembering the content and using it to understand more complex ideas or answer more complex questions. Remember that, if we do visit lessons, it isn't to judge teaching.

Where can I find out more information about the education inspection framework, deep dives and subjects?

We've produced a number of videos that are available on our YouTube channel. The videos explain our thinking about curriculum and how this might translate to subjects. If you do take a look at our subject videos, remember that Ofsted doesn't expect the language or principles that we share to be replicated in schools. Schools have the flexibility to organise their curriculums as they want to - and to adopt the language as they see fit. We hope that these additional resources prove useful in helping you determine what it is you want pupils to know and remember over time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to expect on a primary deep dive - some guidance for subject leaders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Heather Fearn and Jonathan Keay, Her Majesty's Inspectors from Ofsted's curriculum team, discuss some key points about what primary subject leaders (especially small primary schools) can expect from deep dives. This blog builds on our previous blog about the simple ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My name is Jonathan Bifield and I work as an English as an Additional Language (EAL) Coordinator in a large secondary school in England. I have been working in the field of EAL and ELT for over 18 years and have worked in Thailand and currently in England.

This is my personal website that attempts to keep EAL in the Daylight. The benefits of speaking more than one language are numerous and EAL students bring such a wide array of skills, cultures and languages to our classrooms and schools that they should always be in the daylight. They are as important a group of learners as any other and should be celebrated throughout our schools.

You will find blog posts, book reviews, a range of classroom strategies, resources, and much much more as I keep you updated and keep our EAL learners in the Daylight.

I hope you enjoy!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EAL IN THE DAYLIGHT My name is Jonathan Bifield and I work as an English as an Additional Language (EAL) Coordinator in a large secondary school in England. I have been working in the field of EAL and ELT for over 18 years and have worked in Thailand and currently in England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These resources are primarily designed for teaching use. If you are interested in related academic research and statistics on the impact of Talk for Writing on attainment, these can be found here.

To help you navigate and download our hundreds of free resources we've divided them into the following categories:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Download Free Literacy Resources - Talk for Writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our literacy experts have compiled a range of free resources to help you incorporate Talk for Writing into your teaching. Download resources here for FREE!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that vocabulary knowledge is crucial for pupils' school success. Pupils are language sponges, learning thousands of words each year. Like increases in a child's height, it is a slow but inexorable development. On a daily basis it is near-imperceptible, but when you begin to count the passing of school terms, you can see significant differences occurring. For teachers, the key question is how can you best enhance and enrich pupils' vocabulary.

For busy teachers, digging into the research on vocabulary development and language gaps can prove daunting. It is helpful to distil that wealth into consistent pillars of practice that are 'best bets' for supporting, and super-charging, vocabulary development:

The Three Pillars of Vocabulary Teaching

1. Explicit vocabulary teaching

2. Incidental vocabulary learning
3. Cultivating 'word consciousness'

Explicit vocabulary teaching

Explicit vocabulary teaching can provide a vital boost to our pupils' vocabulary development. In recent years, building on the excellent research from Beck, McKeown and Kucan, awareness of choosing the right words to teach has become more common across primary and secondary schools - such as their popular 'Tiers of vocabulary' model:

This awareness of choosing vocabulary to be learnt, making rich connections that build pupils' vocabulary schemas (networks of well connected links), has been bolstered by practical approaches to teaching these individual words and phrases, such as my SEEC model (influenced the work of brilliant researchers, such as Robert Marzano, Isabel Beck and colleagues):

We know that teaching complex academic concepts clothed in sophisticated vocabulary proves a barrier to too many pupils. Dishing pupils a dictionary won't necessarily lead to successful learning. And so, careful attention to aligning the curriculum with opportunities for explicit vocabulary teaching can unlock academic challenges, such as understanding the process of photosynthesis in biology, or learning about the Great Fire of London in key stage 1.

The rise of ' knowledge organisers', and similar tools, offer opportunities to identify key vocabulary, but we should be wary of assuming stacking vocabulary in a list for some quick quizzing offers anything like the deep understanding and rich connections pupils need to make between words, phrases, concepts and big ideas. More active approaches to teaching and engaging pupils with new words include Frayer Models, 'word ladders' (see p10), words maps, word gradients, and similar.

It can be helpful to consider ' keystone vocabulary ' to identify those vocabulary choices that offer pupils opportunities to generate meaningful links via their talk, writing, reading and more. For example, when I have taught romantic poetry to year 7s in the past, we identified important 'keystone' nouns that unpacked a lot of the big ideas that underpin Wordsworth's poem about daffodils:

Now, you can rightly debate whether these are the right words to teach (it is excellent professional development to discuss these small but often crucially significant building blocks of knowledge), but the explicit attention to these words can offer a foundational understanding of what is an unfamiliar word. It is a schema that pupils can add to and go onto make many surprising, exciting connections as they go onto read the poems selected.

""All words are not valued equally. Instead, what we want children to learn is the language of school. For many children, this is a foreign language." (p. 68).

Incidental vocabulary learning

You cannot explicitly teach the words! With over a million words in the English language, teachers make careful selections regarding subject specific vocabulary and those sophisticated Tier 2 words. It is clear that reading rich texts, both in the classroom and beyond the school gates, is critical for language and vocabulary development. Put simply, the more words you read, the more you learn.

When reading complex texts, pupils can struggle to learn new, unfamiliar words, so helping pupils with strategies to notice and record interesting vocabulary is likely to prove valuable. It may be having pupils keep a 'word hoard' of their own - or use vocabulary book marks - or simply record words in the back of their books, for discussion and questioning later. Setting up a 'classroom dictionary' in domains like geography, science or maths, could help move the incidental learning to something more intentional.

Teachers need to flood the classroom with vocabulary alongside explicit teaching. Putting in lots of reading miles on the clock really matters to maximising vocabulary learning, so well structured daily reading opportunities (with care taken over reading choices) can grow pupils' vocabulary, though it may not be immediately visible (remember that opening analogy of height and daily growth?).

When teachers talk about words - their subtleties, misnomers, histories, and more - building on reading high quality texts, these conversational turns unlock important shades of meaning for pupils that can fend off misconceptions and lead to greater understanding when reading. Many of these opportunities will arise spontaneously. You simply cannot predict all the words pupils will know and not know. However, with awareness that some of these 'teachable moments' could be missed, we should aim to wed incidental learning to explicit teaching.

Cultivating 'word consciousness'

'Word consciousness' is an "awareness and interest in words and their meanings" (put a little more interestingly, it is pupils "bumping into spicy, tasty words that catch your tongue"). This love of language and continual curiosity about what words mean, where they are from, and their legion of connections, feels like the end-game of great vocabulary teaching. With careful cultivation, this curiosity can be fostered and it can help fuel our pupils' school success.

The teaching of word parts (morphology) and word histories (etymology) are some of most well-evidenced methods of explicit vocabulary teaching, but done well, we hand over the baton to our pupils and they become 'word conscious', spying word parts and word families each time they read, talk and write. Faced with a complex word like 'oligarchy', pupils can recognise the familiar root '-archy', meaning 'rulership'. It offers an essential hook to understand the word, offering more familiar related words like 'monarchy'.

Common practices, such as ' interactive word walls', 'word of the week', and similar, can engage pupils and reach out to parents. We should be wary these are not superficial gimmicks and that robust vocabulary teaching is careful crafted in curriculum choices and sustained teaching practices too.

What marks out 'word consciousness' from explicit teaching and incidental vocabulary learning? For me, it is the focus on gifting our pupils with independent word learning strategies. It is the understanding about the richness of words that ensures that incidental word learning happens more effectively. It is the end goal, and means, for continued vocabulary development.

"Education is the process of preparing us for the big world and the big world has big words. The more big words I know, the better I will survive in it. Because there are hundreds of thousands of big words in English, I cannot learn them all. But this does not mean that I shouldn't try to learn some." David Crystal, 'Words, Words, Words'
Related:
If you are interested in vocabulary development, my book ' Closing the Vocabulary Gap' is available here (Amazon) and here (Routledge).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that vocabulary knowledge is crucial for pupils' school success. Pupils are language sponges, learning thousands of words each year. Like increases in a child's height, it is a slow but inexorable development. On a daily basis it is near-imperceptible, but when you begin to count the passing of school terms, you can see significant differences occurring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
this report is part of a series of four guidance reports that the eef has produced on the theme of language and literacy. it focuses on pupils between the ages of 5 and 7 in key stage 1. however

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
it may also be applicable to older pupils who have fallen behind their peers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
or younger pupils who are making rapid progress. separate reports cover recommendations for effective approaches for improving literacy in key stage 2 (ages 7-11 years)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
supporting language and literacy development in the early years (ages 3-5 years)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
and improving literacy in secondary schools.  this second edition presents the same recommendations as the first

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
explanations and resources to provide direct paths of action from the evidence-based guidance to classroom practice. the recommendations represent 'lever points' where there is useful evidence about language and literacy teaching that schools can use to make a significant difference to pupils' learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eight recommendations to support the literacy of 5-7 year-olds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ​'reading comprehension house' illustrates that word reading and language comprehension are underpinned by a number of other building blocks of reading.

https://youtu.be/CEPD4txSUpE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
evidence-based recommendations that are relevant to all pupils

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
and particularly to those struggling with their literacy. to develop the recommendations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
we reviewed the best available international research and consulted experts to arrive at key principles for effective literacy teaching.  this second edition of the guidance report presents the same recommendations as the first but also offers additional examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
and resources to support educators to put the recommendations into practice. the report is one of a series of four guidance reports that the eef has produced on the theme of language and literacy. it focuses on pedagogy and approaches to support the literacy development of pupils between the ages of seven and eleven in key stage 2. however

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teachers may also find it useful for older pupils who have fallen behind their peers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
or younger pupils who are making rapid progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seven recommendations to improve literacy teaching for 7-11 year-olds