by Fran Bowman & Stephanie Nislow
Historically, students have learned handwriting and spelling as subjects that were “separate” from the teaching of reading. There is an assumption that students who can accurately read and comprehend a passage can use the “separate” knowledge gained in their handwriting and spelling classes, to write about that passage with legible handwriting and correct spelling. The expectation for most students is that the completion of written classwork and homework will naturally “follow” the child’s ability to read the content being learned or practiced. Not only is this expectation quite a leap for many children, but by connecting the learning of phonics with the learning of letter formations and spelling, kids can benefit from those connections, thereby enhancing the mechanics of their reading, writing, and spelling skills.
Neuroscience has enhanced our understanding of these principles. The actual act of writing reinforces the memory of content being learned (DeHaene, 2009). The introduction of computers requiring typing, as opposed to handwriting, further separates the movement aspects of enhancing the memory of sound and letter connections (Smoker, Murphy, & Rockwell, 2009). Students who handwrite are receiving feedback from the kinesthetic process of moving their arm and hand in particular patterns to create letters. For students learning to read, the process of writing the letters and words they are learning helps to further embed them in their long-term memory (Slingerland, 1994). Reading and writing are part of a learning circle. Each informs the other and makes it stronger.
Samuel T. Orton and Anna Gillingham created a method that combined decoding and encoding of sounds and syllables (Orton, 1937). Students learn in the Orton-Gillingham Approach how to form the letters, make the sounds, and use them for the reading and spelling of words in the same lesson. Multisensory input of saying and talking and listening and writing of the sounds simultaneously, “locks in” the connections that will need to be used in decoding and encoding (Birsh & Carreker, 2018). The sounds are presented in a systematic, sound by sound, synthetic approach to eliminate guessing and build a targeted approach to figuring out words for reading and writing of words in isolation, in sentences, in paragraphs, and ultimately in longer text (Moats, 2020). There is a clear expectation that the letters and words that children are able to read are the letters and words that they will learn to write. Decoding, handwriting, and spelling are intentionally taught together (Shaywitz, 2020). Sixty years after Orton and Gillingham created their method of teaching, we learned that preparing the brain for this learning via phonological awareness training would make this process work faster and more effectively (Brady & Fowler, 1994).
There is a science of reading to guide us instructionally, so that kids learn to read efficiently and effectively. We know that reading should be taught in an explicit, systematic way. We know that phonological awareness activities provide kids with an understanding of how the sounds and syllables of a language work without letters—how sounds and syllables are different from one another, how the sounds and syllables blend together, how those sounds and syllables can be segmented in words, how sounds and syllables may be deleted and replaced in words, how the sequence and combinations of sounds and syllables changes, and that sounds and syllables are not the same (Stanovich,1988). Students are then taught phonics—how those sounds (phonemes) are attached to letters (graphemes). We know that kids who first learn the mechanics of decoding words with automaticity, who are given ample time for fluency training at the sentence and paragraph level, will ultimately be free to focus their reading attention on vocabulary and comprehension (Seidenberg, 2017). One area that is not always discussed in this scientific view of learning to read is the impact of connecting the teaching of reading to the teaching of writing. After all, literacy is about reading and writing.
The spelling of sounds, syllables, and words is reinforcing (Ehri, 2015). Learning the rules for spelling (like when to double letters when adding endings to root words) assists in the reading of those words, informing the reader that the doubled letter does not get pronounced twice. It is illogical to give students words with certain patterns for spelling that are different than the word patterns learned for reading, as it does not help the student to connect these crucial relationships.
In the OgStar Reading App the intertwining of reading, handwriting and spelling is present in each of the 106 lessons. OgStar follows the Science of Reading with what is understood in research about the reading-writing connection by incorporating the following:
- Students do phonological awareness, decoding, and encoding of the same phoneme/grapheme unit presented in each lesson.
- Students say the sounds of the letters as they write them, to enhance their memory of the sounds.
- Students write directly on the screen receiving tactile and kinesthetic input, visual feedback, and auditory information simultaneously. The kinesthetic feedback from their arm and hand movements, as well as the haptic feedback from the sensation of the screen on their fingertips is a strong memory enhancer (Perez Ariza, 2016).
- OgStar provides a multitude of sensory feedback channels in every step of the lesson plan, combining reading and writing in many of the activities.
Stay Tuned With Us!
Offering children an opportunity to independently practice these skills is helpful. Students can work on enhancing their reading, writing, and spelling skills on their own, to reinforce information learned in direct instruction in their classrooms. Using apps, like OgStar Reading, is one way of infusing this important scientific knowledge into the learning of reading and writing in an engaging and gamified presentation.
REFERENCES (in order of appearance in text)
- Stanovich, K.E. (1998). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of learning disabilities 21 (10), 590-604.
- Brady, S. & Fowler, A. (1994). Training phonological awareness: A study with inner-city kindergarten children. Annals of Dyslexia (44). 26-59.
- Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Orton, S.T. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech problems in children. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
- Birsh, J. & Carreker, S. (2018). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
- Moats, L.C. (2020). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
- Shaywitz, S. (2020). Overcoming dyslexia (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday.
- DeHaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. London, ENG: Penguin Random House.
- Smoker, T.J., Murphy, C.E. & Rockwell, A.K. (2009). Comparing memory for handwriting versus typing. 53rd Annual Meeting. Orlando, FLA: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
- Slingerland, B. (1971). Specific language disability children, A multi-sensory approach to language arts. Cambridge, MA: EPS
- Perez Ariza, V.Z. (2016). Haptic interfaces: Kinesthetic vs. tactical systems. Revista EIA 13 (29).