| OCR Text |
Show LETRS based spelling curriculum 4 Problem Statement Methods of spelling instruction have changed over time from explicit instruction to incidental instruction (Pan et al., 2021),resulting in more controversy on how spelling should be taught in education today. There are two main sidesof the argument. The first position is that spelling should be integrated into other subjects and have an incidental instructional approach. The second position is that spelling should be explicit, using strategic planning (Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Pan et al., 2021). The difference of opinion for spelling instruction has led to the lack of uniformity and has transformed into a variety of techniques. Research has demonstrated that explicit spelling instruction is the most effective method versus an incidental instructional method (Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Pan et al., 2021; Schlagal, 2002). The current research indicates that spelling instruction, much like reading instruction, needs to be explicit (Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Pan et al., 2021; Schlagal, 2002) with a phonological, morphological, etymological, and orthographic approach (Bowers & Bowers, 2017). Teaching patterns, morphology, etymology, and phonology significantly improved spelling and word reading skills in primary grade students (Devonshire et al., 2013). Many teachers lack the depth of knowledge about linguistics to implement explicit spelling instruction. Puliatte and Ehri (2018) stated that students of teachers with higher phonemic and linguistic knowledge obtained better spelling growth from the beginning of the school year to the end. According to Vines et al. (2020) there are seven non-negotiables when it comes to spelling instruction. One of those non-negotiables is that teachers must have linguistic knowledge. Teacher linguistic knowledge informs spellinginstruction and benefits students’ spelling gains (Carreker et al., 2010; Ehri & Flugman, 2018; McNewill, 2018; Pittman et al., 2022; Pittman et al., 2023; Pulliate & Ehri, 2018). |
