Revised Book Review: (Final)

RAsheda Young

ENGL 2808 BW Theory and Pedagogy

May 7, 2013

Book Review: Final

ReThinking Spelling Errors: A Book Review

_____________

McAlexander, Patricia J., Ann B. Dobie, and Noel Gregg. Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers. Urbana: NCTE, 1992. Print.

                                                     ____________________________         

In 1992, the National Council of Teachers of English published Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers. The authors draw from a variety of sources “to help high school and college teachers implement such a form of spelling instruction both in writing centers and in the classroom” (xiii) that will help improve the spelling of two distinct populations: learning disabled students and students enrolled in basic writing classes.  The book’s premise is “that when secondary and postsecondary teachers read student papers to identify the student’s pattern of error and select instructional techniques accordingly, students will respond, using what Mina Shaughnessy terms their ‘adult power of awareness and self-direction’ (qtd. in McAlexander 186) to strengthen their areas of weakness” (xii).  Therefore, by first identifying the student’s pattern of spelling error and then teaching it to him or her, the authors believe that the spelling of the learner will improve. 

Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers is divided into two sections: “Theory & Research” and “Practice.”  The first section, “Theory & Research,” begins with a discussion between the different alphabetic, logographic and syllabary writing systems to provide a background of why learners may have spelling difficulties.  If a student comes from a logographic writing system like Chinese and then has to learn to write in English, an alphabetic system, it stands to reason that this learner will have difficulty mastering how to spell using an alphabetic system.  McAlexander et al. are careful to note that physical differences among alphabets do not significantly affect spelling (5); however, it is important to stress that students will have difficulty learning to write in a print system completely different from their own.  The alphabetic system uses graphemes, a written sign, (McAlexander et al. 1) where one letter represents a sound.  It is phonetically based.  In contrast, a logographic system uses graphemes to represent words or concepts.  In some instances, according to McAlexander et al., a logographic writing system is better because it uses pictures; pictures don’t have sounds and they are easier to interpret (2).  At the same time, a logographic system can be more difficult than an alphabetic system since it “requires far more memorization and visualization…students of Chinese writing must memorize a far greater number of pictorial components of characters and learn to combine those components in hundreds of ways” (2).

McAlexander et al. present the history of print systems and how these various print systems affect the learning of students.  Many educators, myself included, may not realize that a person from a logographic writing system may have difficulty mastering spelling in another language that uses a different print system.  It is an added bonus for the visual learner and a kudos to the authors to include a graphic example of a logographic writing and spelling system, Chinese.  This graphic cemented both the left (written) and right (visual) sides of my brain.  Through the visual aid, I was able to concretize my learning of this new concept.

The authors continue their analysis of print and how it affects the learner’s spelling through their discussion of a syllabary system.  Japanese writers use the system called katakana, in which “[t]he symbols. . . represent not individual sounds, but the combination of sounds making up larger elements, the syllables of words, usually a vowel sound, or consonant-vowel sound” (3).  In this system, a larger number of signs must be memorized.  It is more difficult for the learner to use this system as there are many symbols to memorize to correlate with the syllable.  As such, learners who come from this type of print system make frequent spelling errors as their L₁ print system differs vastly from their target language, assuming that their target language is Standard American English.

The key difference between syllabary, logographic, and alphabetic systems is that alphabetic systems “differ in appearance and in the sounds they represent; some alphabets include sounds that are not represented in other alphabets at all.  (McAlexander et al. 4). In the  syllabary system, the learner does not learn individual sounds but he or she memorizes the syllables that produce a word. The logographic system uses symbols to represent whole words and concepts. In the former listed systems (syllabary and logographic), the learner has not developed the auditory ability to sound out individual sounds.  This affects how quickly he or she learns to spell in his or her L₂.  When an instructor understands key differences between print systems and sees that a learner may be struggling to produce correctly spelled words, he or she can create appropriate instructional tools to supplement the learner’s “deficits” in learning.  Moreover knowing which route the speller uses is a crucial component to solve bad spelling.  Once educators know their student’s route, they can teach him or her how to fix persistent patterns of error and redirect his or her attention to more global issues in their writing.

The authors’ thorough explanation of the changes in pedagogical approaches to teaching grammar will help an educator understand that he or she is not the only one wrestling with how much direct instruction of spelling one should provide in composition classrooms.  In fact, the authors answer this question.  They suggest it is best to provide twenty minutes or less of direct spelling instruction. This amount of time or less keeps the learner’s attention and provides just enough time for the learner to absorb some of the new material.

McAlexander et al. move the conversation from discussing print systems to the irregularity of English spelling errors.  They note that what contributes most to students’ spelling errors is the lack of one-to-one correspondence of a sound to the letter (5).  One reason for difficulty, they note, “is that the twenty-six letters of the alphabet are used to represent over forty English speech sounds” (5).  In other words, learners have difficulty with the irregularity of spelling rules and learning that the same letter may have a different sound in a different word. 

To make spelling easier, some reformers, according to the authors, proposed a phonetic based alphabet, but that would have been disastrous as it would have complicated universal understanding of printed words.  Regional dialects could have affected the writer’s spelling; therefore, “William Caxton, a fifteenth-century printer began consciously and consistently representing words on paper” (7).  Other notable scholars, namely Noah Webster, simplified spelling, thus improving the irregularity of spelling, in 1828.  His contribution made understanding print easier for readers since spelling had become standardized.  McAlexander et al. do not provide a historical account of significant contributions or changes to spelling between 1828 and 1960.

Traditionalists during the 1800s, emphasized product, correctness and grammar. They preferred essays that were grammatically and mechanically correct.  However, in the 1960s, there was another pedagogical change: process. Because of open admissions, it is important to emphasize that during the 1960s many educators saw “increasing numbers of students categorized as learning disabled and as basic writers” (10) in their classrooms.  Students that attended poorer quality high schools entered college with deficits in their learning and knowledge of correct spelling.  Consequently, teachers placed heavier emphasis on how writers arrived at their final product to better understand how learners constructed his or her understanding.  The former pedagogy, product, did not reveal much about the student’s error.

The earlier method of composing essays focused on the product the learner produced.  The new approach focused on the process-- how the learner arrived at his or her understanding:  “According to the new paradigm, teachers ‘cannot teach students to write by looking only at what [the students] had written.  [Teachers] must also understand how that product came into being and why it assumed the form it did’” (Hairston qtd. in McAlexander et al. 10).  The speller may misapply certain spelling rules, lack understanding of semantics, morphology, analogy and motor movements.  Understanding the route that the learner uses to arrive at his or her misspelling gives the educator clues to best fix the spelling errors of students. 

The authors’ thorough explanation of the changes in pedagogical approaches to teaching grammar will help an educator understand that he or she is not the only one wrestling with how much direct instruction of spelling one should provide in the composition classroom.  In fact, the authors answer this question.  They suggest it is best to provide twenty minutes or less of direct spelling instruction in the classroom. This amount of time or less keeps the learner’s attention and provides just enough time for the learner to absorb some of the new material.

One of the best features of Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers is the distinction between learning disabled writers and students enrolled in basic writing classrooms.  The phrase basic writers represents “an institutional and departmental label usually defined and temporarily applied...[whereas] learning disabled is a label that indicates a probably permanent neurological condition, and that has political ramifications” (23).  The label “basic” implies temporary; the label “learning disabled” implies permanency.  This distinction may help an educator develop appropriate lesson plans as well as help him or her create lessons within both types of learners’ zone of proximal development. Moreover McAlexander et al. believe “students diagnosed as learning disabled have characteristics and needs that often overlap with those of basic and even regularly placed writers” (24).  Since these populations of students have many overlapping qualities, the ability to distinguish between the two and offer support helps improve their spelling success.

            If you are a new instructor, writing center tutor, high school teacher, or a parent of a child who has severe spelling errors, five to ten errors per one hundred words, you will particularly enjoy the “Practice” portion of this book.  It offers practical strategies useful in the classroom and provides handouts that you can modify for your own uses.  One of the best features of this section is the twenty-four different English spelling rules that are easy to understand.  All of the explanations are reader-friendly, and all of them provide examples of the rule.  Exceptions to the spelling rule are also provided. One particular strategy that I enjoyed is the “Individual Spelling Survey,” a questionnaire that asks the student how he or she spells.  From this survey, an educator can determine if the learner relies primarily on his or her auditory or visual abilities to spell words. 

The authors’ version of a “Tchart” of misspelled words is another great visual aid to help both learning disabled and students enrolled in basic writing classes.  Dividing the list into three sections of “Misspelled Words,” “Target Word,” and leaving the last section for the teacher to identify this error as “typical” or “unusual” provides a visual blueprint for the reader.   This visual aid is particularly useful as it helps students see their spelling errors in a larger context: against other students.  McAlexander et al. are careful to point out that “there is no absolute answer as to whether a misspelling is unusual or typical.  A teacher’s classification reflects the students he or she teaches, their backgrounds, and the region of the country they live in” (42). 

            While I enjoyed reading the book immensely, I would have liked the authors to spend more time explaining the different types of spelling errors learning disabled students make and then provide strategies.  Currently, the authors go into detail about only one specific kind of learning disability: dysgraphia.  I would have liked for them to provide more strategies for students who have different learning disabilities as this is a growing population of students in basic writing classes.

If you have a fascination for helping students improve their spelling, then Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers is the book for you.  I am a tutor at a writing center and have always enjoyed helping students improve their spelling.  I borrowed from such websites as Purdue Owl or the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s writing center website to make my own handouts.  I particularly appreciate the handouts on Purdue OWL, which help the speller identify and/or mark out his or her errors. Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers makes locating information easy.  There’s even an “Additional Recommended Readings” section in the book for you to build on your knowledge of spelling.  Moreover, the References page is comprehensive, though a bit dated. 

Prior to reading Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers, I didn’t know there were books out there dedicated specifically to helping both learning disabled and basic writers improve their spelling.  Beyond the “SP” Label: Improving the Spelling of Learning Disabled and Basic Writers has helped me rethink the way I saw spelling errors by considering the learners’ writing system and the irregular spelling rules within the English language.  I now better understand different writers who use a logographic writing system, the errors of dysgraphic writers and students enrolled in basic writing classes.  I am thankful that now I have such a reference.