Atom and Eave:
Creating Better Spellers*
Kenn Apel, PhD, CCC-SLP
Professor and Director
School of Communication Science and Disorders
The Florida State University
[email protected]
*and readers!
What We Know
• Spoken language (the language we use daily to
communicate with others) is related to and important for
written language (reading and writing, including spelling)
• Spoken and written language share six underlying linguistic
components:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Phonology (sounds of language)
Morphology (smallest units of meaning of language)
Semantics (meaning of language)
Syntax (rules governing order of language)
Pragmatics (rules governing how we use language)
Orthography (rules for letter order, letter-sound
correspondence, and mental images of written words)
• Spoken and written language differ in the amount of
conscious awareness one applies for these components
Apel & Apel, 2011
Multiple Linguistic Approach
• Assessment is focused on determining which
factor or factors are leading to difficulties in
spoken and/or written language
• This multiple linguistic approach leads to
prescriptive, specific goals and activities to
improve spoken and/or written language
• Today, we will see how spelling samples can
provide a window into students’ knowledge and
awareness of these multiple linguistic factors
Multiple Linguistic Factors Supporting
Spelling*
•
•
•
•
•
Phonemic awareness (PA)
Orthographic pattern awareness (OPA)
Morphological awareness (MA)
Semantic awareness (SA)
Mental graphemic representations (MGRs)
*And word-level reading
Multiple Linguistic Approach: Clues
from Students’ Spellings
• Phonemic awareness: ability to think about,
talk about, and manipulate speech sounds
• Difficulties using phonemic awareness include:
– Omission/additions of phonemes (sounds) in
writing
• Omission of letters tend to be for less salient sounds,
especially in internal locations and in unstressed
syllables: “sop” for “stop”, “relize” for “realize”
– Letter reversals, especially for liquids (l,r) and
nasals (n,m, ng) in a word or syllable sequence,
such as when spelling: “flod” for “fold”
Multiple Linguistic Approach: Clues
from Students’ Spellings
• Orthographic Awareness: ability to consider
how to translate language from spoken to
written form.
– Orthographic pattern awareness: spelling
patterns/conventions
– Mental graphemic representations: mental
pictures of written words
Multiple Linguistic Approach: Clues
from Students’ Spellings
• Difficulties using orthographic pattern
awareness include poor awareness of:
– sound-symbol correspondences (alphabetic
principle; e.g., “cas” for “catch”)
– rules for combining letters (e.g., “kry” for “cry”;
“jrum” for “drum”)
– patterns that govern spelling within roots/base
words (e.g., “ran” for rain; “lader” for “ladder”)
– positional constraints (orthotactics) on spelling
patterns (e.g., “ckow” for “cow”)
Multiple Linguistic Approach: Clues
from Students’ Spellings
• Difficulties using mental graphemic
representations include:
– Phonetic spelling of non-phonetic words (e.g.,
“cidy” for “city”)
– Incorrect spelling of unstressed syllables (“buckit”
for “bucket”) and vowels preceding ng, r, l (“reng”
for “rang”, “whil” for “wheel”)
– Words spelled differently on repeated attempts
(e.g., stopd, stopt, stoppd, stoppt)
– Any example where one “just needs to know it is
spelled that way” (e.g., “leap” vs. “leep”)
Multiple Linguistic Approach: Clues
from Students’ Spellings
• Morphological Awareness: ability to
consider morphemes, their specific
spellings, and the semantic ‘connections’
between a root or base word and its
corresponding inflectional and
derivational forms
Multiple Linguistic Approach: Clues
from Students’ Spellings
• Morphological Awareness: Difficulties
using morphological awareness include poor
awareness of:
– morphological units (“walk” for “walked”)
– spelling of affixes (e.g., “talkt” for “talked”; “musishun”
for “musician”)
– suffix modification rules (e.g., “hoped” for ‘hopped”;
“calfes” for “calves”)
– semantic relationship between a root or base word and
its inflected and derived forms (e.g., “busy” but
“bizness”)
Multiple Linguistic Approach: Clues
from Students’ Spellings
• Semantic Awareness: ability to think the
effect of spelling on word meanings (or vice
versa).
• Difficulties using semantic awareness include
correct spellings that relate the wrong meaning
(e.g., “one” instead of “won”; any word that is not
correct for that context)
Spelling Assessment
• Single word assessment
– Requires student to write words you control
– Does not have the linguistic/cognitive demands involved in
connected writing
• Text-level writing assessment
– Students must deal with the linguistic/cognitive demands
involved in connected writing
– Students can avoid words they can’t spell
• Quantitative analysis typically tells you right or wrong,
not why student is misspelling.
• To be diagnostic and prescriptive, spelling assessment
must include a systematic analysis of the nature of the
spelling errors to determine the underlying causes (i.e.,
deficits in PA, OPA, MA, SA, MGR)
Atom
• 10:6
• Second year of 3rd grade; repeated
kindergarten
• No teacher or parental concerns about spoken
language abilities
• Informal spoken language sample suggested
adequate phonological, morphological,
semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic knowledge
needed for conversation
Atom’s Spelling Sample
• Ose (Once) thre (there) was a gil (girl) wha
(who) was a tak (track) sar (star) who was non
(known) for beng (being) rely (really) fat (fast).
She tand (trained) relly (really) hrad (hard)
becus (because) she pand (planned) on ting
(trying) out for the Olympics. Howvr
(However), rit (right) befr (before) the ti ot
(tryouts), she bok (broke) her lag (leg) and
cod’t (couldn’t) rin(run).
Ask yourself….
• PA: Are all the sounds in the word represented? Are
more represented than should be?
• OPA: Is there a rule or pattern within a base word or
root that is being violated?
• MA: Is there a problem with an affix, either in its
presence, spelling, or attachment? Is the base word
spelling not being used in the spelling of its derived
form?
• SA: Does the spelling lead to a different meaning?
• MGR: Is a portion of a word spelled incorrectly, even
though it is following allowable orthographic and
morphological patterns? (Do you just need to know a
part of the word must be spelled that way?)
• Ose (Once) thre (there) was a gil (girl) wha
(who) was a tak (track) sar (star) who was non
(known) for beng (being) rely (really) fat (fast).
She tand (trained) relly (really) hrad (hard)
becus (because) she pand (planned) on ting
(trying) out for the Olympics. Howvr
(However), rit (right) befr (before) the ti ot
(tryouts), she bok (broke) her lag (leg) and
cod’t (couldn’t) rin(run).
PA
OPA
MA
MGR
In addition to writing samples, we
can assess spelling using
standardized measures
One example is the Spelling
Performance Evaluation for Language
and Literacy -2 (SPELL-2; Masterson,
Apel, & Wasowicz, 2006)
Multiple-Linguistic Prescriptive Assessment Software
Grade 2 - Adult
Disclosure: Kenn Apel is a co-author
and has a financial interest in SPELL
Fiona explains tasks to younger students
Quinn guides older students and adults
Selector Module determines the most appropriate level of
assessment to administer; Main Test Module collects a spelling
sample for analysis
The Will-O-Wisp Modules probe phoneme segmentation
skills specific to the individual student’s spelling errors
The Magical Pond Modules probe phoneme discrimination
skills specific to the individual student’s spelling errors
The Spell Book Modules probe a student’s knowledge of
semantic relationships and readiness for spelling words with
prefixes and suffixes
Results…
Spelling responses
are scored and a
Results Report is
created in just
seconds – saves
valuable time
Recommendations…
The
Recommendations
Report provides
individualized
learning objectives –
focuses word study
instruction where it
is most needed
Letters to parents &
classroom teachers…
Customized
letter-style
reports created
in a flash –
make sharing
results with
parents and
classroom
teachers quick
and easy
Letters to parents &
classroom teachers…
Customized
letter-style
reports created
in a flash –
make sharing
results with
parents and
classroom
teachers quick
and easy
Atom’s SPELL-2* Results
• Examples included:
– To improve spelling of consonant blends by
developing ability to segment phonemes and map
letters to sounds in words containing this spelling
pattern
– To improve spelling of long vowel o and I by
developing knowledge of letter patterns and
spelling rules
Apel & Apel, 2011
Eave
• 10:0
• 3rd grade; repeated kindergarten
• No teacher or parental concerns about spoken
language abilities
• Informal spoken language sample suggested
adequate phonological, morphological,
semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic knowledge
needed for conversation
Eave’s Spelling Sample
• Last sumr, at St. Goerge Iland, I wantd to
find something so I was sertching with
my medl detektr to find something. I
fownd a ringing (ring). It was dep in the
sand and I was eksitid (excited). It had a
penk stone on it and it was prety. I was
happy untell I lost it.
Eave’s Spelling Sample
• Last sumr, at St. Goerge Iland, I wantd to find
something so I was sertching with my medl
detektr to find something. I fownd a ringing
(ring). It was dep in the sand and I was eksitid
(excited). It had a penk stone on it and it was
prety. I was happy untell I lost it.
PA
OPA
MA
MGR
Eave’s SPELL-2* Results
• Examples included:
– To improve spelling of ‘schwars’ (syllabic r, as in her)
and ‘schwals’ (syllabic l, as in little) by developing
knowledge of letter patterns and spelling rules
– To improve spelling of regular past tense and rules for
modifying base words when adding this inflectional
morpheme
– To improve spelling of the ‘ow’ vowel by developing
clear and complete mental images of words
containing this spelling pattern
Apel & Apel, 2011
Prescriptive Instruction
Using Assessment to Guide
Intervention
Basic Points re: Word Study
Intervention/Instruction
• All activities are introduced by instructor models before student
attempts them (I do, we do, y’all do, you do)
• Focus on the Five Blocks
• Provide
– direct, focused attention to the Five Blocks via naturalistic
and “contrived” experiences
– plenty of opportunities for text-level reading and writing
•
•
Spelling instruction should be used for both reading and spelling
development
Facilitation of spelling skills should occur across the curriculum
An Activity to Improve Phonemic Awareness for
Spelling
Use “Sound Strings”* to link PA to spelling
◦ Adult and student(s) each have a sound string
◦ After considerable modeling first (and possible “priming”), adult
presents word
◦ Student moves beads
◦ Student places beads on top of paper
◦ Student writes at least one letter per bead
◦ Specialist discusses outcome, including “other knowledge”
demonstrated by student (e.g., digraph awareness)
 Keep in mind to:
 Target specific segmentation errors
 Control and gradually increase size of word or syllable
 Consider word position
 Consider phoneme properties

*SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing™
stribble
Noun – I’ll have a stribble, please.
You showed me you knew:
• All the sounds in the word
• That you heard and counted all three initial sounds, even
though they are tricky to do so
• That some sounds have two letters (/b/=bb)
• That we often double a letter after a short vowel in a two
syllable word
• That the final sound can be spelled ‘le’
retrocked
(verb – She retrocked yesterday.)
You showed me you knew:
• All the sounds in the word
• That you heard and counted all consonant sounds that occur
together, even though they are tricky to do so
• That the sound /k/ at the end of the word is often spelled ‘ck’
• That because this action occurred in the past, you need to
write ‘ed’ even though it sounds like /t/
An Activity to Improve Orthographic Pattern Awareness
for Spelling

Word Sorts
◦ Target contrasting rules
◦ Adult provides index cards with contrasting spelling
rules/patterns
◦ Student sorts into piles, with scaffolding as needed
◦ Student is encouraged to verbalize the rule/pattern
◦ Key word is established if appropriate
◦ New rule/pattern is practiced in controlled writing tasks
◦ Word searches occur in written text
Sample Sort
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Badge
Page
Bridge
Hedge
Rage
Huge
Siege
Lodge
What’s the rule?
•
•
•
•
Badge
Bridge
Hedge
Lodge
•
•
•
•
Page
Rage
Huge
Siege
Activities to Improve Morphological Awareness for
Spelling


Word Sorts
“Relatives and Friends”*
◦ Adult discusses with student that family members can:
 Look and sound alike
 Look alike but not sound alike
 Sound alike but not look alike
 Not sound or look alike but still be related
◦ Adult explains that for many “word relatives” the same
situations occur
◦ Adult and student brainstorm the relatives of a specific word
and discuss how the “main relative” helps spell the others.
◦ Adult can include foils and have student discuss why this
strategy should not be apply
*SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing™
Act
act
acter
act
acter
actor
act
acter
actor
actar
act
acter
actor
actar
actir
act
XXXXXXXX
acter
actor
actar
XXXXXXXX
actir
XXXXXXXX
act
act
tion
act
tion
acttion
act
tion
acttion
act
tion
acttion
action
Other Morphological Awareness Activities
• Other tasks may include:
– Word building: given cards with prefixes, suffixes or base words
(roots), combine to make or recognize word (un+clear, salt+y)
– Word generating: given affix, generate a word
– Morpheme finding: find roots and affixes in texts
– Word sorts (e.g., similar spelling, dissimilar purpose – corner,
reader)
Word Building
Prefix
Base/root
Suffix
re
cycle
-tion
im
friend
-ly
dis
teach
-er
in
make
-able
busy
-ness
hard
-ship
Morpheme Fixes
• Instructor and student choose common prefix or suffix
and discuss meanings/spellings
– Common prefixes*:
• re-, in-, dis-, im– Common suffixes*:
• -tion, -y, -ly, -ant, -less, -er, -ment, -ful, -ness, -able,
-ous, -ish, -ist,
• -ive, -ic, -ary, -ern, -ship, -ent, -ing, -or, -al, -en, -ity,
-ward
• Student searches (reads) text and identifies use of target
affix (prefix or suffix)
• Student explains meaning and spelling of affix in context
of text.
An Activity to Improve MGRs for Spelling
 “Picture This”* strategy
◦ Used for words for which other
strategies/knowledge sources cannot be used
◦ Adult models strategy of visualizing first using a
picture and then an image familiar to student
(e.g., bedroom)
◦ Using target word, student and adult look at
written word and talk about its characteristics
◦ Students spells word forward and backward
◦ Student takes “picture” of word
◦ Student visualizes word, spells it forward, then
backward.
*SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing™
V.
Sample Instructional Activities
Picture This!
Mental Images of Words
V.
Sample Instructional Activities
Picture This!
V.
Sample Instructional Activities
Picture This!
phlecoamers
V.
Sample Instructional Activities
Picture This!
Case Study of Student with
Special Needs
Kelman & Apel, 2004
Student
• 11-year-old, 4th grade, English-speaking female with
a history of literacy difficulties
• Born at 30 weeks gestation, weighing 2.8 lbs
• Received oxygen support first year of life
• Received physical and occupational therapy until 36
months of age
• Early speech and language skills within age
expectations (adjusted age for premature infants).
• Raised in a literate environment
Pre-Intervention Information
• Teachers described her as “average” even though:
– Word-level reading abilities were borderline typical
– They accommodated spelling difficulties:
• Shortened number of spelling words for testing from 20 to 10 per
week
• Allowed extra days for studying
• Student passed weekly tests (averaging 7 or 8/10) but did not
retain correct spellings weeks later.
• In fourth grade, accommodations did not lead to passing grades
(longer multi-syllabic words) and effects of spelling on written
composition seen (limited content due to replacement of multisyllabic words with less complex words she could spell)
Intervention
• 9.6 hours of direct intervention across 8 weeks
• Based on prescriptive assessment, intervention
focused on orthographic knowledge and phonemic
awareness skills
– long/short vowels and “r-controlled” vowels
– blending and segmentation
• Included homework assignments
Results
• Spelling
– Authentic writing
• Pre: 193/26%
Post: 36/16%
– Spelling to dictation
• Pre: 24/30%
Post: 6/8%
– Moderate effect size (d = .5) for pre-/post-spelling
samples
Results
• Word-level Reading
– Word Attack
• Pre: 86(83-88)
Post: 99(96-102)
– Word Identification
• Pre: 88(87-90)
Post: 94(92-95)
Spelling and Reading
 There is a reciprocal relationship between spelling and
reading: (Kelman & Apel 2004)
30%
25%
20%
Spelling
15%
Errors
Pre
Post
10%
5%
0%
Authentic Writing
Spelling to Dictation
Spelling and Reading
 There is a reciprocal relationship between spelling and
reading: (Kelman & Apel 2004)
100
95
Decoding
Skills
90
Pre
Post
85
80
75
Word Attack
Word Identification
Classroom Study Application
Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Hart, P. (2004)
Participants
• Class 1: Third/fourth grade split (6 third graders; 11
fourth graders); 9 boys and 8 girls; 7 students were
Caucasian, 1 was African-American, and 9 were
classified as “other.”
• Class 2: Third grade class; 7 boys and 12 girls;16
students were Caucasian and 3 were classified as
“other.” One student was on a current IEP for
language, one for math, and one student was
bilingual.
Procedures
• Class 1 received four spelling instruction “units”
across a 9-week instructional period. The units
targeted strategies to improve phonemic awareness
skills (6 sessions), orthographic rules (6 sessions),
and morphological awareness skills (5 sessions).
Each session was 50 minutes long.
– Phoneme awareness activities focused on
phonemic segmentation, tying knowledge of the
sounds in a word to the graphemic
representation of those sounds.
Procedures (cont.)
• Class 1 (cont.)
– Orthographic awareness activities introduced specific spelling
rules (e.g., long vowels, final liquid representations) via sorting
tasks (e.g., Apel & Masterson, 2001; Masterson & Crede, 1999).
– Morphological awareness activities focused on highlighting
relationships between “word relatives” (i.e., base words and their
inflected and derived forms) that varied in their phonological and
morphological overlap.
• Class 2 received the traditional spelling curriculum of
the school
• All students were administered a list of 40 words, pre- and
post-instruction.
Results
• At the onset of the study, both classes were
equivalent in their spelling abilities.
• At the conclusion of the study, Class 1
significantly improved their word accuracy
spelling skills; Class 2 remained the same
(F=4.386, p<.05).
• For Class 1, effect size was d = .65. For class 2,
effect size was d = -.07.
Classroom Study
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Treatment 0.3
Effect
0.2
Size
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Class 1
Class 2
Traditional
Classroom
Instruction
SPELL-Links
Instruction
(Apel, Masterson & Hart 2004)
Discussion
• Results suggest that
– a classroom-based “Five Blocks” spelling program
shows great promise for facilitating spelling
development in school-age children
– growth in spelling (word-study) skills may be
more linked to the type of instruction rather
than the grade level or current skills of the
students
SpellTalk
A discussion group for educators dedicated
to improving their students' spelling skills.
* Network with colleagues and share your knowledge –
Exchange questions, ideas, and comments about spelling and related reading
writing skills
and
* Keep up with current spelling research –
Receive abstract summaries of recently published journal articles in your inbox
* Find answers to your questions and hone your professional skills –
Participate in monthly Ask the Expert exchanges with leading researchers and
educators
* Become familiar with research-based products for spelling assessment
and instruction
www.learningbydesign.com
http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/spelltalk
Ticket Out of Workshop
• Name one piece of information you learned
(or had reinforced) that you will implement in
your work setting.
• Describe how you will implement the
information.
Summary
• Teachers and other specialists should have an
appreciation and understanding of the
multiple linguistic factors underlying spelling
(and reading) development
• This knowledge will guide them in
understanding what knowledge/skills students
need and allow them to target the most
appropriate goals for their students
• Instructional tasks should focus explicitly on
“how words work”
Selected References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Apel, K. (2011). What is orthographic knowledge? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 592-603.
Apel, K., & Lawrence, J. (2011). Contributions of morphological awareness skills to word-level reading and spelling
in first-grade children with and without speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 54, 1312-1327.
Apel, K. & Apel, L. (2011). Identifying intra-individual differences in students' written language abilities. Topics in
Language Disorders, 31, 54-72.
Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (2000). The ABC’s of spelling: Development, assessment, and intervention: Prologue.
Topics in Language Disorders, 20, (3), vi-viii.
Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (2001). Theory-guided spelling assessment and intervention: A case study. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 32, 182-195.
Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Niessen, N.L. (2004). Spelling assessment frameworks. In A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.
Ehren, & K. Apel, (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. (pp. 644-660). New York:
Guilford Press.
Apel, K., Masterson, J., & Niessen, N. (2004). Spelling assessment frameworks (pp. 644-660). In Stone, A., Silliman,
E., Ehren, B., & Apel, K. (Eds.) Handbook of language and literacy. New York: The Guilford Press.
Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Brimo, D. (in press). Spelling assessment and intervention: A multiple linguistic
approach to improving literacy outcomes. In A.G. Kamhi & H.W. Catts (Eds). Language and reading disabilities (3rd
ed.).
Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Hart, P. (2004). Integration of language components in spelling: Instruction that
maximizes students’ learning. In Silliman, E.R. & Wilkinson, L.C. (Eds.), Language and Literacy Learning in Schools.
(pp. 292-315). New York: Guilford Press.
Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Wilson-Fowler, E.B. (in press). Developing word-level literacy skills in children with and
without typical communication skills. In S. Ellis, E. McCartney, & J. Bourne (Eds.), Insight and impact: Applied
linguistics and the primary school. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between
language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 39-56
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Jones, J., Wolf, B.J., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S., & Apel, K.
(2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing-, reading-, and speaking-connections, three letter
writing modes, and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 1, 61-92.
Selected References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Calhoun, M., & Masterson, J. (in press). Lexical analysis of words on commonly used standardized spelling
assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(2).
Carlisle, J. (2004). Morphological processes that influence learning to read (pp. 318-339). In Stone, A., Silliman, E.,
Ehren, B., & Apel, K. (Eds.) Handbook of language and literacy. New York: The Guilford Press.
Cron, D., & Masterson, J. (2010). Treating Reading and Spelling Skills in an Elementary Student. In Chabon, S., &
Cohn, E. (Eds.). Communication Disorders: A Case-Based Approach: Stories from the Front Line (pp.303-309).
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Ehri, L.C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 3,
19-36.
Hart, P., Scherz, J., Apel, K., & Hodson, B. (2007). Analysis of spelling error patterns of individuals with complex
communication needs and physical impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 1, 16-29.
Kamhi, A. & Hinton, L. (2000). Explaining individual differences in spelling ability. Topics in Language Disorders, 20,
3, 37-49.
Kelman, M. & Apel, K. (2004). The effects of a multiple linguistic, prescriptive approach to spelling instruction: A
case study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25, 2, 56-66.
Kelman, M., & Apel, K. (2004). Effects of a multilinguistic and prescriptive approach to spelling instruction.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(2), 56-66.
Kohler, C.T., Bahr, R.H., Silliman, E.R., Bryant, J.B., Apel, K., & Wilkinson, L.C. (2007). African American English
dialect and performance on nonword spelling and phonemic awareness tasks. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 16, 157-168.
Masterson, J. & Apel, K. (2007). Spelling and word-level reading: A multilinguistic approach. In Kamhi, A.,
Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (Eds). (2007). Clinical decision making in developmental language disorders (pp. 249-266).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Masterson, J. & Apel, K.(2000). Spelling assessment: Charting a path to optimal instruction. Topics in Language
Disorders, 20(3), 50-65.
Selected References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Masterson, J. J., Apel, K. & Wasowicz, J. (2009). SPELL-2g Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language and
Literacy® - Second Edition with Grouping Tool workstation [Computer software]. Evanston, IL: Learning By Design,
Inc.
Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2006). Effects of modality on spelling words varying in linguistic demands.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 261-277.
Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2010). Linking characteristics discovered in spelling assessment to intervention goals and
methods. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 3, 185-198.
Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2010). The Spelling Sensitivity Score: Noting developmental changes in spelling
knowledge. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 35-45.
Masterson, J., & Crede, L. (1999). Learning to spell: Implications for assessment and intervention. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30(3), 243-254.
Masterson, J., Apel, K., & Wasowicz, J. (2006). Spelling evaluation for language and literacy- 2 (SPELL-2) [computer
software]. Evanston, IL: Learning by Design
Richards, T.L., Aylward, E.H., Berninger, V.W., Field, K.M., Grimme, A.C., Richards, A.L., & Nagy, W. (2006). Individual
fMRI activation in orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or morphological spelling
treatment in child dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19, 56-86.
Wasowicz, J., Apel, K. & Masterson, J. J. (2003). Spelling assessment: Applying research in school-based practice.
Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 4(1), 3-7.
Wasowicz, J., Apel, K., Masterson, J., & Whitney, A. (2004). Spell Links to Literacy. Evanston, IL: Learning By Design,
Inc.
Wolter, J. (2009). Teaching literacy using a multiple-linguistic word-study spelling approach: A systematic review.
Evidence-Based Practice Briefs, 3, 43-58.