Most recent Blog: Dr. Kerry Hempenstall on DI

877.485.1973 | 541.485.1973
Info@NIFDI.org

877.485.1973 | Info@NIFDI.org

Details: Published: 25 August 2025; Hits: 420

Spelling Mastery and Spelling through Morphographs (2015)

The end of this segment is meant to hold relatively newer information. It’s true of most of my articles. However, it appears that the Morphographic function is now used less in industry. So, I found less data on that staff topic

So why did I start another document after my own? I have decided to take into account more recent documents. I’ve selected only research findings provided in the years 2020 to 2025.

The idea was to get some sense of how Spelling Mastery and Spelling through Morphographs may have changed.

So, the first section below is my work, then publications are from more recent researchers.

“Abstract

There has been concern about student literacy expressed in the community in recent years, following the results of national and international assessment. In spelling, there are insufficient hard data, but the perception is that our students are not receiving the exemplary spelling education they require. A number of possible reasons have been canvassed, including suboptimal teacher literacy and literacy knowledge, the inadequacy of teacher education, and a lack of attention to spelling instruction in the classroom. There is increasing evidence about the components of instruction that best aid students to become skilled spellers, though fewer well-designed evaluation studies to help consumers choose which programs are optimal. The three components that have received much research attention are: the phonemic, whole word, and morphological techniques. Spelling Mastery and Spelling through Morphographs are two programs that specifically emphasize these components and hence are worthy of investigation.”

Neither model was adopted, and we continue with an English writing system of 26 letters and about 45 phonemes that can be spelled in at least 350 ways (Pollack & Pickarz, 1963). The permutations this produces makes quite formidable the tasks of learning to read and spell. For example, confusion often arises from words that look alike but are pronounced differently (tough, bough, cough, dough), and words that look different (mail, male) but sound alike. So, learning to spell in English is substantially more difficult than in a transparent writing system, in which letters correspond one-to-one to the sounds in that language (Fowler, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1979).

Despite the difficulty competent spelling is vital because writing quality itself is underpinned by spelling skill. The current research results point to the importance of link between spelling and written composition. Many participants in our research studies lament that they cannot write compositions that express their ideas without limiting those ideas to the words they think they can spell without embarrassment (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008, p.13).

Just as fluent lower order phonological processes assist reading comprehension by reducing the demand placed on attention of decoding, so skilled spelling assists written expression by enabling the student to attend to the higher order process of expressing ideas lucidly (Singer & Bashir, 2004). Is there a problem with spelling among Australian students? In the national assessment program (NAPLAN) reporting, the results superficially appear comforting. The proportion of students meeting national minimum standards is very high – over 90% across all Year levels (ACARA, 2013a). However, in a recent document (ACARA, 2013b; ACARA, 2013c), which was only released after a Freedom of Information request from a politician, it is evident that answering only a few terms correctly is sufficient to determine that a student meets minimum standards. In Year 3 spelling in the 2013 assessment, three correct out of 25 questions was the threshold for meeting the minimum standard, a jump from one correct out of 25 in 2011 (Hall, 2013).

Such a low threshold does not inspire confidence that meeting minimum standards is a meaningful achievement. The 2013 NAPLAN Conversion Tables (ACARA, 2013c) also offers information about what proportion of students reached a raw score equivalent to 50% of questions answered correctly (i.e., a “pass” score). NAPLAN test results are divided into 10 bands that rank children into achievement levels. The higher the band number, the higher is the achievement level. In Year 3 a pass score would place the student in Band 4; in Year 5 a pass score would place the student in Band 6; and in Years 7 and 9 a pass score would place the student in Band 7. Thus achievement in the higher bands is achieved with surprisingly low raw scores.

Additionally, NAPLAN spelling is assessed in a proof reading format - one that has been criticized as an inappropriate method of spelling assessment. Correction of the incorrect spelling of a word is considered less difficult than synthesizing the word from its oral equivalent (Wigglesworth, Simpson, & Loakes, 2011). However, any single spelling test is considered by some as unable to assess the full range of spelling skills, just as a single reading test cannot describe all the facets of reading (Calhoon, Greenberg, & Hunter, 2010). ACARA is currently reviewing the adequacy of the current approach (ACARA, 2013b).

Parents (Department of Education, Science and Training DEST, 2007) and employers (Michael, 2012; Australian Industry Group, 2013) report concerns regarding spelling and grammar. In the DEST survey, only 37.5% of the surveyed parents believed that students were leaving school with adequate skills in literacy. In the recent Australian Industry Group employer survey, 93% of employers considered their business success was compromised by employees’ low level literacy skills, and they found in-house basic skills training was necessary.

Is the teaching of spelling an area of concern?

It has been argued (Mahar & Richdale, 2008; Mullock, 2012; Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee, 2007) that teacher training institutions pay insufficient attention to strategies for spelling instruction in their courses. 3

Adding to this problem is a recent concern that the entry requirements for teacher training have been falling, and hence there is the likelihood that at least some teachers lack the personal literacy skills needed as a pre-requisite to teaching them (Fisher, Bruce, & Greive, 2007). Apart from their levels of personal literacy, many Australian teachers do not have a strong understanding of the structure of the English language (Fielding-Barnsley, 2010; Fielding-Barnsley& Purdie, 2005; Mullock, 2012; Tetleya & Jones, in press). Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004) noted that error analyses of the word structure knowledge of teachers and their students indicated a close similarity. Thus, low teacher knowledge of word structure was associated with a similarly low level in their students. This inability to deliver what one doesn’t have appears to apply also to some teacher trainers.

In a study by Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, and Hougen (2012) teacher educators were assessed on their knowledge of basic language constructs, such as phonological and phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, and morphology. Most of these teacher educators had doctoral degrees, yet there were glaring weaknesses in their knowledge. Further, the teachers in training were also assessed, and there was a marked relationship between the results of the teacher educators and their own students, that is, the teachers in training for whom they were responsible.

See also the Bos et al. (2001) study which evaluated the knowledge of language structure of both teachers in training and teacher educators, 53% of teachers in training and 60% of teacher educators were unable to correctly answer nearly half of the questions. The assessment tasks employed in the Binks-Cantrell et al. study were not described, but phonological tasks often include analyzing spoken words into their individual phonemes, and knowledge of the alphabetic principle may involve decoding pseudowords.

Morphological tasks commonly include: There have been studies indicating that teachers with a greater understanding of language structure have students with stronger reading achievement. “K–5 teachers with intensive professional development in basic language constructs produced students with significantly higher scores on reading tasks compared to students who were taught by teachers without this knowledge (McCutchen, Abbott, et al., 2002; McCutchen & Berninger, 1999; McCutchen, Harry, et al., 2002; McCutchen, Green, Abbott, & Sanders, 2009) (Binks-Cantrell et al., p.528).

It is tempting to conclude that the relationship between the language knowledge of teachers and their students is a causal one, and that the relationship between the language knowledge of teacher educators and teachers-in-training is similarly causal. However, studies have yet to conclusively demonstrate the nature of these associations through large scale empirical studies. For example, Byrne et al. (2010) noted relatively low teaching effects in their twin study, though they were higher for spelling than reading. More extensive research is required. Brownell and colleagues (2009) noted that it is not simply teacher knowledge that can produce gains for students, but rather “engaged knowledge”, that is “when teachers are able to situate their linguistic knowledge in the context of teaching” (p.393) that is important. There is evidence that many beginning teachers struggle to teach spelling effectively (Louden et al., 2005), and further - that spelling instruction in Australia is not paid sufficient classroom attention (Ferrari, 2006; Wheeldon, 2006), that is, there is insufficient time allocated to it within the literacy domain.

The most common approach has been to provide spelling lists for students to study each week for testing at the week’s end. “High frequency lists, such as those produced by Hudson (1983), Clutterbuck, (1990), and Rowe & Lomas (1996), are frequently used by teachers” (Department of Education and Children’s Services, 2011). Lists per se can be valuable adjuncts to a spelling program if they are organised according to patterns of word structure rather than to word frequency. The expectation is that students will either store the words as pictographs using rote visual memorization, or else they will independently induce the phonemic and morphological techniques necessary for adept conventional spelling. The problem with pictographs is that they are not generative, They do not offer cues other than a unique word shape.

To build sight words in memory, orthographic mapping is required. Readers must form connections between the spellings and pronunciations of specific words by applying knowledge of the general writing system. When readers see a new word and say or hear its pronunciation, its spelling becomes mapped onto its pronunciation and meaning. These mapping connections serve to “glue” spellings to their pronunciation in memory (Ehri, 2014, p.6). Scott (2000) estimated that even the most intensive word list program, extended weekly throughout the primary years could display for students only between 20% to 40% of all the words they are expected to be able to spell. Further, the lack of systematic instruction means that, for vulnerable learners, it is a fruitless hope that spelling will be learned incidentally (Bourassa & Treiman, 2014).

Even for students not at risk, the limited pictographic memory store cannot deal with such a challenge, and there are insufficient practice opportunities for the spelling presented to be stored as readily retrievable orthographic images (Westwood, 2008). Thus, students try to memorize the spelling list for the test, but with neither a productive strategy nor an understanding that the words share characteristics of other words in that family, the spelling of the tested words is soon forgotten (Dixon, 1993; Scott, 2000).

Another version of incidental teaching was promoted en#on by Whole Language advocates who believed that spelling progresses naturally without the need for systematic assistance (Cambourne & Turbill, 2007; Goodman, 1989), or that written English is too irregular for instruction in spelling correspondences to be effective (Smith, 1985). Hence, there was little instructional time devoted to it, and spelling attainment declined (Bruck, Treiman, Caravolas, Genesee, & Cassar, 1998; Westwood, & Bissaker, 2005).

There may also be a belief that spelling simply evolves from reading and/or writing. That spelling are often self-taught via reading is true for skilled readers (Pacton, Borchard, Treiman, Lété, & Fayol, 2013); however, self-teaching alone is ineffective for young students whose literacy skills are still developing. In fact, research has demonstrated “ … that children are less likely to learn words’ spellings from the reading of meaningful, connected text than from the study of isolated words” (Treiman, in press, p.16). A belief that uncorrected invented spelling will lead to progressively close approximations to conventional spelling has also been rejected (Read & Treiman, 2013). That doesn’t mean that invented spelling has no functional purpose. Invented spelling is best viewed as a means for students to explore the links between phonemes and orthographic representations. However, it is best achieved when feedback allows the comparison of their efforts with conventional spelling is provided (Sénéchal, Ouellette, Pagan, & Lever, 2012).

Hempenstall, Kerry. (2015). Spelling Mastery and Spelling through Morphographs: Direct Instruction programs for beginning and low-progress spellers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 20. 55-81. 10.1080/19404158.2015.1048259

**************************************************************************************

And now we usually look at fresh approaches in similar fields. However, there are relatively little morphographics still being employed.

“One important reason for the learning out comes engendered by Spelling Through Morphographs is that spelling in English is very consistent when a morphemic structural approach is used. As a result, students learn to combine morphographs to spell complex words and, in doing so, to apply the highly consistent morphographic-oriented spelling rules when necessary. Considered in combination with research-based DI teaching principles (e.g., explicit formats for learning tasks, pacing appropriate for student learning, use of signals to manage group instruction, use of correction procedures to ensure student mastery, cumulative review), Spelling Through Morphographs is a program that offers schools a feasible approach to ensure students learn to spell. In doing so, the instructional benefits to students are well beyond those associated with limited, traditional phonemic-based or word-based approaches presently used by schools (see Simonsen & Dixon, 2004; Simonsen & Gunter, 2001; Simonsen et al., 2008).”

One reason for using Spelling Through Morphographs in the present study is that the design rationale underlying the curricular scope of spelling proficiency engendered Journal of Direct Instruction through the programs is both educationally unique and instructionally powerful (Simonson & Dixon, 2004). In Spelling Through Morphographs, students learn a total of 673 morphographs in 140 lessons. Such morphographs consist of base words (e.g., copy, serve, might), nonword bases (e.g., cept as in acceptable), prefixes (e.g., ac- as in acceptable), and affixes (e.g., -able as in acceptable) and are supported by a total of 14 complementary spelling rules (e.g., When a word ends in e and you add a morphograph that begins with a vowel letter, drop the e). As a result of learning to combine the morphographs learned and to apply the spelling rules appropriately, students learn to spell through a generative and primarily combinatorial process ( e.g., ac + cept + able = acceptable; like + ly = likely, like + able = likable) more than 16,000 words. One important reason for the learning out comes engendered by Spelling Through Morphographs is that spelling in English is very consistent when a morphemic structural approach is used. As a result, students learn to combine morphographs to spell complex words and, in doing so, to apply the highly consistent morphographic-oriented spelling rules when necessary. Considered in combination with research-based DI teaching principles (e.g., explicit formats for learning tasks, pacing appropriate for student learning, use of signals to manage group instruction, use of correction procedures to ensure student mastery, cumulative review), Spelling Through Morphographs is a program that offers schools a feasible approach to ensure students learn to spell. In doing so, the instructional benefits to students are well beyond those associated with limited, traditional phonemic-based or word-based approaches presently used by schools (see Simonsen & Dixon, 2004; Simonsen & Gunter, 2001; Simonsen et al., 2008).”

MICHAEL R. VITALE, MICHAEL B. MEDLAND, and THEODORE S. KANIUKA. Implementing Spelling with Morphographs with Above-Average Students in Grade 2: Implications for DI of Comparisons with Demographically Similar Control Students in Grades 2-3-4-5. Journal of Direct Instruction, Vol. 10, pp. 17-28. article2_ADI.qxd

______________________________________________________________________________

Morphological Knowledge and Students Who Are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing: A Review of the Literature.

“Students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) struggle to attain grade-equivalent literacy skills and require education interventions to improve. Recent literature reviews have revealed the need for high-quality intervention research for the following areas of reading: vocabulary development, reading comprehension, reading fluency, and grapheme–phoneme correspondence. The purpose of the current study was to determine the evidence surrounding morphological development for students who are DHH. The results were reported in a table as well as descriptively. This population exhibits a morphological knowledge delay that may be improved through explicit morphological instruction. Future researchers should consider conducting high-quality morphology intervention research with students who are DHH.”

Trussell, J. W., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2016). Morphological Knowledge and Students Who Are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing: A Review of the Literature. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 38(2), 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116644889 (Original work published 2017)

___________________________________________________________________________________

Features of Direct Instruction: Content Analysis

“The goal of Direct Instruction (DI) is to teach content as effectively and efficiently as possible. To do this, instructional designers must identify generative relations or strategies that allow the learner to respond correctly to untaught situations. The purpose of content analysis is to identify generative relations in the domain to be taught and arrange the content in such a way that it supports maximally generative instruction. This article explains the role of content analysis in developing DI programs and provides examples and nonexamples of content analysis in five content domains: spelling, basic arithmetic facts, earth science, basic language, and narrative language. It includes a brief sketch of a general methods of conducting a content analysis. It concludes that content analysis is the foundation upon which generative instruction is built and that instructional designers could produce more effective, efficient, and powerful programs by attending explicitly and carefully to content analysis.”

Slocum, T.A., & Rolf, K.R. (2021). Features of Direct Instruction: Content Analysis. Behav Analysis Practice 14, 775–784 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00617-0

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Accelerating Spelling Skills using Morphographs

“Developing spelling skills by a direct instruction spelling program was undertaken in a regular school in New South Wales, Australia, with 132 primary (upper elementary) subjects. In an eight month period of instruction, these subjects gained from eleven to thirty‐six months in spelling age. The old euphemisms of ‘intelligence’, ‘maturation’, ‘potential’, etc. can no longer be used as excuses for a child not having been taught new skills in a specified school period. This study shows that effective programs and effective teaching techniques of direct instruction allow all children to learn.”

Maggs, A., McMillan, K., Patching, W., & Hawke, H. (2006). Accelerating Spelling Skills using Morphographs. Educational Psychology, 1(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341810010105

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Morphemically Based Spelling Program’ Effect on Spelling Skills and Spelling Performance of Seventh Grade Students

“The effects of a morphemically based spelling program, Corrective Spelling Through Morphographs, were ascertained for students of low, average and high spelling achievement levels. Seventh grade students who completed 140 lessons over an 8-month period acquired skills the program purported to teach and displayed significant gains in general spelling achievement. Average- and low-achieving students’ proportionate gains were greater than high achieving students’ gains. Though the experimental groups’ spelling performance on a secondary measure of spelling achievement was not significantly different from the performance of a control group, the experimental group in comparison to the control group, did significantly improve its spelling performance on the primary measure of general spelling achievement.”

Robinson, J. W., & Hesse, K. D. (2014). A Morphemically Based Spelling Program’ Effect on Spelling Skills and Spelling Performance of Seventh Grade Students. The Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885356

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

“This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of spelling interventions for the remediation of dyslexia and spelling deficits. Theoretically important moderators, such as the treatment approach as well as orthographic and sample characteristics, were also considered. Thirty-four controlled trials that evaluated spelling interventions in children, adolescents, and adults with dyslexia and spelling deficits were included. Results show that treatment approaches using phonics, orthographic (graphotactic or orthographic phonological spelling rules), and morphological instruction had a moderate to high impact on spelling performance. A significant influence of interventions that teach memorization strategies to improve spelling could not be confirmed. This work shows that understanding the principles of an orthography is beneficial for learners with dyslexia or spelling deficits and presents key components for effective spelling intervention.”

Galuschka, K., Görgen, R., Kalmar, J., Haberstroh, S., Schmalz, X., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2020). Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1659794

________________________________________________________________________________

Direct/Explicit Instruction and Social Constructivist Practices (2024)

“DI/EI has also been shown to enhance more than just academic achievement in young students. For example, Fielding et al. (1983) demonstrated that secondary school students who were taught complex concepts in the field of law using direct instruction performed better on a multiple-choice test and essay test examining knowledge of the law in comparison to students who were taught using an inquiry-based approach. Kousar (2010) found similar results in their study, stating, “The Direct Instructional model was found to be more effective than traditional instruction in immediate and delayed retention, as well as development of positive attitudes” (p. 102). This statement suggests the participants in the DI/EI condition were more likely to encode stimuli relative to the traditional instruction control condition. The notion that DI/EI increases academic achievement can be explained due to the role of feedback and student motivation. As previously stated, feedback and error correction are inherent components of the DI/EI model. Corrective feedback has consistently been shown to increase student motivation and confidence, subjective vitality, and the satisfaction of the psychological need for competence and relatedness (Kilic et al., 2021; Vergara-Torres et al., 2020) and is generally preferred by students (Gamlem & Smith, 2013). While DI/EI seems to be effective for a wide range of students, as previously discussed, it is worth reviewing whether these same positive academic and non-academic effects can be materialized specifically for students with developmental disabilities in an inclusive classroom. Direct/Explicit Instruction and Students with Developmental Disabilities.”

Avery Matthews. (2024). Direct/Explicit Instruction and Social Constructivist Practices in Inclusive Classrooms https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8875-4301

____________________________________________________________________________________

Features of direct instruction: Content analysis (2021)

Slocum, T. A., & Rolf, K. R. (2021). Features of direct instruction: Content analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(3), 775-784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00617-0

______________________________________________________________________________________

Attitudes toward Direct Instruction in Western Australian (2022)

“A validated and reliable survey was administered to 89 teachers and school administrators across 27 schools in Western Australia to determine their attitudes towards Direct Instruction (DI). Results showed that contrary to the literature, participants in this sample felt positive towards this scripted approach. The teachers acknowledged DI was expensive and American in content but took a pragmatic view and were impressed with the results obtained. In contrast to previous research, they did not find DI boring, harmful or an approach that employs rote learning and believed it can meet the complex demands of classrooms and exist alongside inquiry learning.

There is some resistance to Direct Instruction (Bessellieu, Kozloff, & Rice, 2001; McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). However, Bessellieu et al. (2001) reported the comments of 83 teachers they interviewed about their time using DI and only 5 (6%) had negative comments. These comments could be attributed to the failure of the teachers to implement DI faithfully. I am interested if these figures are replicated in the Australian context.

Despite the challenge to beliefs, recent support for Direct Instruction has come from Australian politicians, policymakers and educational researchers and has been widely reported in the media (for example, Bita, 2015; Buckingham, 2016b; Donnelly & Wiltshire, 2014; Ferrari, 2014; Hiatt, 2014, pp. 45–46; MacTiernan, 2014, p. 10; Mueller, 2019; Walker, 2017) and received government funding.

In Australia in 2014, the Australian Federal Government funded a 22 million dollar ‘Flexible literacy for remote primary schools programmer’ using two instruction-centred approaches: fully scripted Direct Instruction and Explicit Direct Instruction, an un-scripted approach underpinned by direct instruction teaching strategies (DET, 2014). This initiative was designed to address the literacy skills of some of Australia's lowest performing students.”

Concern about the literacy performance of Australian students has been documented in the media in recent times and is the focus of a government led reform-based agenda for schools (Cook, 2016; Tehan, 2019; Turnbull, 2016). In a report titled Five Challenges in Australian School Education, Masters (2016) highlighted this relative decline in Australian student literacy performance, compared to other nations as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

The OECD estimates that approximately 40,000 Australian 15-year olds (that is, one in seven students) fail to achieve an international baseline proficiency level in reading. This means, that after 10 or more years of school, these students lack the reading skills that the OECD believes are required to participate adequately in the workforce and to contribute as productive citizens (Masters, 2016). In 2019, this figure had risen to 20 percent of Australian students (Thomson, 2019). .. high school teachers need to know how to address the literacy needs of their students but frequently feel unprepared to teach those for whom reading is especially difficult (Cantrell & Hughes, 2008; MacMahon, 2014). Given this, it is reasonable to assume that the introduction of the OLNA has placed secondary schools under increased pressure to provide student support in literacy. Further, it is much more difficult to have an impact on student learning in the higher grades because achievement in high school is strongly related to achievement in primary school: the gap between low and high achievers widens over time and becomes increasingly difficult to close (Buckingham, 2015a).

Primary schools have faced similar scrutiny over literacy; in particular how a child can receive over 10 000 h of instruction and still remain at risk for literacy failure (Thomson, DeBortoli, & Buckley, 2013). The preparedness of primary school teachers to support students with literacy difficulties has also been questioned, specifically the emphasis Australian teachers place on child-centred reading practices that de-emphasise systematic phonics instruction (Buckingham, Wheldall, & Beaman-Wheldall, 2013).”

Lorraine Hammond. (2022). Attitudes toward Direct Instruction in Western Australian primary and secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 112, 103651. ISSN 0742-051X.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Why is there so much resistance to Direct Instruction? (2014)

“Direct Instruction has been the subject of empirical research since its inception in the 1960s and has garnered a strong research base to support it. Despite its proven efficacy, Direct Instruction is not widely implemented and draws much criticism from some educators.

This literature review details the components of Direct Instruction, research to support it and reported attitudes towards it. The aspects of Direct Instruction that attract the most criticism are broken down to determine just what it is that educators do not like about it. In addition, this review attempts to outline possible ways to improve the landscape for Direct Instruction by reviewing research on how best to achieve a shift in beliefs when adopting change in schools. This includes pre-service teacher education and professional development and support for practising teachers as a means of improving rates of implementation of Direct Instruction.”

From the research currently available regarding teacher attitudes and acceptance of DI, it would appear that maintaining pressure is necessary to ‘chip away’ at the walls of resistance in place (Carnine, 2000, p. 9; Guskey, 2002, p. 388). Remarkably, it would appear that the education community's lack of acceptance is not unique to DI. Teachers are not known for readily adopting changes, even in response to significant evidence (Carnine, 2000, p. 2; Lindsley, 1992, p. 21; Snider & Schumitsch, 2006, p. 17). Carter and Wheldall (2008) contend that while small aspects of change may occur, we are unlikely to see major change happen in a short period of time: it will require a more measured phase of correction, with these smaller changes accumulating over time (p. 8).

Perhaps the units of change required to adopt evidence-based practices such as DI would be more manageable if there was a closer match up between their underlying principles and the philosophical values of teachers. This is difficult, however, because as most teachers do not specifically subscribe to a set of beliefs about education, they more typically make decisions in an eclectic manner, based on intuition or personal preference (Carnine, 2000, p. 8; Carter & Wheldall, 2008, p. 9; Hempenstall, 2006, p. 85; Snider & Schumitsch, 2006, pp. 17, 22). With this in mind, there is little value in continuing to present empirical data because it is likely teachers will continue to select and implement teaching practices based on personal beliefs and preferences rather than making large changes in response to empirical data (Kim & Axelrod, 2005, p. 112).

McMullen, F., & Madelaine, A. (2014). Why is there so much resistance to Direct Instruction? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2014.962065

https://multilit-ecomm-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/14160227/McMullen-Madelaine-2014-Why-is-there-so-much-resistance-to-Direct-Instruction.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________

What Is the Place for National Assessment in the Prevention and Resolution of Reading Difficulties? (2013)

“Controversy has surrounded the annual National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) since its introduction in 2008. This initiative was designed to provide nationally consistent information on student progress in basic skills in years 3, 5, and 7, replacing the various state-based tests that preceded it. A great deal of criticism has been generated, particularly by teacher organisations and education faculties, and published prominently in the media. Parents have been understandably concerned when they hear their children's teachers calling for the end to NAPLAN. This paper takes the position that, despite its current shortcomings, a national assessment program is an essential pre-requisite to the progress of education in Australia.”

Hempenstall, K. (2013). What is the place for national assessment in the prevention and resolution of reading difficulties? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2013.840887

(PDF) Spelling Mastery and Spelling through Morphographs: Direct Instruction programs for beginning and low-progress spellers

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Spelling Mastery and Spelling through Morphographs (2015)

“Abstract

Spelling: “The abandoned stepchild in the family of language arts” (Joshi, Treiman, Carreker, & Moats, 2008, p.9). The English written language is an amalgam of numerous languages with different spelling conventions (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Wełna, 2011), and thus is complex and difficult to learn (Landerl, Wimmer, & Frith, 1997) these spelling irregularities have led to several attempts at reforming the alphabet - the most famous being that of George Bernard Shaw in the Nineteenth Century, and the introduction of the Initial Teaching Alphabet in the Twentieth Century. Neither model was adopted, and we continue with an English writing system of 26 letters and about 45 phonemes that can be spelled in at least 350 ways (Pollack & Pickarz, 1963). The permutations this produces makes quite formidable the tasks of learning to read and spell. For example, confusion often arises from words that look alike but are pronounced differently (tough, bough, cough, dough), and words that look different (mail, male) but sound alike. So, learning to spell in English is substantially more difficult than in a transparent writing system, in which letters correspond one-to-one to the sounds in that language (Fowler, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1979).

In Year 3 spelling in the 2013 assessment, three correct out of 25 questions was the threshold for meeting the minimum standard, a jump from one correct out of 25 in 2011 (Hall, 2013). Such a low threshold does not inspire confidence that meeting minimum standards is a meaningful achievement. The 2013 NAPLAN Conversion Tables (ACARA, 2013c) also offers information about what proportion of students reached a raw score equivalent to 50% of questions answered correctly (i.e., a “pass” score). NAPLAN test results are divided into 10 bands that rank children into achievement levels. The higher the band number, the higher is the achievement level. In Year 3 a pass score would place the student in Band 4; in Year 5 a pass score would place the student in Band 6; and in Years 7 and 9 a pass score would place the student in Band 7. Thus achievement in the higher bands is achieved with surprisingly low raw scores.

Additionally, NAPLAN spelling is assessed in a proof reading format - one that has been criticised as an inappropriate method of spelling assessment. Correction of the incorrect spelling of a word is considered less difficult than synthesising the word from its oral equivalent (Wigglesworth, Simpson, & Loakes, 2011). However, any single spelling test is considered by some as unable to assess the full range of spelling skills, just as a single reading test cannot describe all the facets of reading (Calhoon, Greenberg, & Hunter, 2010). ACARA is currently reviewing the adequacy of the current approach (ACARA, 2013b). Parents (Department of Education, Science and Training DEST, 2007) and employers (Michael, 2012; Australian Industry Group, 2013) report concerns regarding spelling and grammar. In the DEST survey, only 37.5% of the surveyed parents believed that students were leaving school with adequate skills in literacy. In the recent Australian Industry Group employer survey, 93% of employers considered their business success was compromised by employees’ low level literacy skills, and they found in-house basic skills training was necessary.

Is the teaching of spelling an area of concern?

Most of these teacher educators had doctoral degrees, yet there were glaring weaknesses in their knowledge. Further, the teachers in training were also assessed, and there was a marked relationship between the results of the teacher educators and their own students, that is, the teachers in training for whom they were responsible. See also the Bos et al. (2001) study which evaluated the knowledge of language structure of both teachers in training and teacher educators, 53% of teachers in training and 60% of teacher educators were unable to correctly answer nearly half of the questions. The assessment tasks employed in the Binks-Cantrell et al. study were not described, but phonological tasks often include analysing spoken words into their individual phonemes, and knowledge of the alphabetic principle may involve decoding pseudowords. Morphological tasks commonly include There have been studies indicating that teachers with a greater understanding of language structure have students with stronger reading achievement. “K–5 teachers with intensive professional development in basic language constructs produced students with significantly higher scores on reading tasks compared to students who were taught by teachers without this knowledge (McCutchen, Abbott, et al., 2002; McCutchen & Berninger, 1999; McCutchen, Harry, et al., 2002; McCutchen, Green, Abbott, & Sanders, 2009) (Binks-Cantrell et al., p.528).

Another version of incidental teaching was promoted by Whole Language advocates who believed that spelling progresses naturally without the need for systematic assistance (Cambourne & Turbill, 2007; Goodman, 1989), or that written English is too irregular for instruction in spelling correspondences to be effective (Smith, 1985). Hence, there was little instructional time devoted to it, and spelling attainment declined (Bruck, Treiman, Caravolas, Genesee, & Cassar, 1998; Westwood, & Bissaker, 2005).

Dixon, R. C., & Engelman, S. (2001). Spelling through morphographs. SRA/McGraw-Hill.

____________________________________________

Direct Instruction: The Tools to Teach Students to Read (2021).

“Pam Judge has experienced the benefits of DI, many times over. Having first been introduced to Reading Mastery Fast Cycle while teaching Year 2 and 3 students in a mid-west Western Australian country town in the 1980s. Pam detailed her experience in an article for the Bulletin published by the Learning Difficulties Australia in October 2014, titled ‘A personal reflection on teaching practice.’ In this personal account, Pam spoke about her initial trepidation towards starting the program that quickly vanished after receiving some PD, the enjoyment she experienced teaching the program, and primarily “…the amount of progress I could see students who’d found reading difficult were making.”

Pam’s experience led her back to the city. Equipped with the knowledge of teaching and seeing the success of DI, Pam was eventually able to introduce DI reading classes to an inner-city school “… with huge social problems and not a great reputation for academic performance.” The results, she found, spoke for themselves:

“I purchased SRA Corrective Reading materials and we ran DI reading classes throughout the school from Year 3 upwards. We employed Corrective Reading Decoding and Comprehension and Thinking Basics. We spent a lot of time, money and effort on this. Over the next five years, we were thrilled with what we achieved. Our local high school informed us we were sending them the best students out of four other primary schools, we had teachers come to observe classes, I had phone calls from parents out of our area asking me if their kids could attend our reading classes if they moved into our area.”

In her reflection, Pam spoke candidly of how her experience teaching DI was sometimes met with criticism from others in the school community, but that initial uncertainty was overshadowed once they realized the progress the students had made. That is what DI is all about – the progress each student makes.

“When I look back over the years, I remember many of the quiet little kids who turned up to classes barely able to read a sentence or two. I remember the kids who were initially loud and outspoken who found it really hard not to try and chat to me all the way through the lesson. The chronic fiddlers who wanted to play with pencil sharpeners shaped like crocodiles and rubbers with fluffy bits on them, instead of concentrating on the task in hand. The one thing that ties them all together is the progress that they all made and the fact that they all became readers. And that is what I am so grateful for – the fact that I was given the tools to teach them to read.”

Pam Judge has been the Deputy Principal of a large Perth Primary School, the Principal of a WA Primary School situated in the Wheatbelt, and worked in Hong Kong for many years.”

McGraw Hill. (2021). Direct Instruction: The Tools to Teach Students to Read.

https://www.mheducation.com.au/blog-1/direct-instruction-tools-reading?utm_medium=display&utm_source=website&utm_campaign=website-traffic-23&utm_term=di-blog-pam&utm_content=blog-ad

_____________________________________________________________________________________

An Effective Path Forward with Direct Instruction (2024)

“In this paper, we reflect on the existing literacy achievement gap in the United States, the interconnected variables that contribute to this social justice issue, and the history of the federal government’s response to this problem. We offer one part of a potential social justice solution to this deeply rooted and complex educational problem: a response shaped by the evidence-based methodology of Direct Instruction Reading. After contextualizing the literacy achievement gap, we detail the history of Direct Instruction efficacy, highlight key components of the methodology, and briefly summarize decades worth of research that demonstrate its consistent ability to increase marginalized students’ access to quality reading instruction. Together, these illustrate the potential for transforming student outcomes as one part of a solution for the injustice of the literacy achievement gap.” Comparing reading research to program design: An examination of Teachers College Units of Study.

Ramaswamy, S., & Lackey, A.D. (2024). Instructivism in Literacy as a Means for Social Justice: An Effective Path Forward with Direct Instruction Reading. Behav. Soc. Is, 33, 532–562 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00151-4

____________________________________________

Effectiveness of Direct Instruction in Developing the Reading Skills of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. (2025)

“This research assessed the effectiveness of the Direct Instruction Program in developing the reading skills of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Qualitative research methodology of phenomenology and focus group discussion were utilized to gain an in-depth understanding of the personal experiences of the research participants. To achieve this, the researcher conducted in-depth interviews with the participants. Upon analyzing the gathered data, Direct Instruction (DI) manifested that it has helped in developing the reading skills of students with ASD as a promising approach. However, the participants noted that there are some strengths and challenges associated with its implementation.

By creating learning experiences that are tailored to the needs of the individual student, DI can help students with ASD improve their reading skills significantly. Modifications are needed to ensure that the lessons are personalized and that they meet the unique needs of each student. The modifications might include simplifying the script, using pictures, and providing additional support to help students understand the material.

Improving the reading abilities of students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a critical goal for both educators and researchers. Special education teachers utilize various instructional methodologies to address the learning challenges that these students face, especially in reading. One such promising method is Direct Instruction (DI), a structured teaching approach that has effectively enhanced reading proficiency for students with diverse learning requirements.

DI was developed initially by Bereiter and Engelmann in 1966 as a preschool curriculum for children from low-income families. The program comprised lessons lasting 20-30 minutes and focused on arithmetic and reading, featuring meticulously planned and presented content to ensure mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills before progressing to more complex concepts.

Early results exhibited significant progress among students, leading to further exploration of this potent teaching technique. DI involves creating lesson plans that are explicit, scripted, and step-by-step to optimize learning outcomes. A study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of Direct Instruction (DI) in enhancing the reading skills of students with ASD. Head et al. (2018) found positive results when they examined the impact of a DI reading comprehension curriculum on students with ASD. While DI programs have been successful in other fields, there is limited research on their efficacy for students with ASD. Sierra (2012) researched the effects of DI on teaching students' oral comprehension and observed a significant increase in their comprehension scores. The DI curriculum has the potential to enhance the reading comprehension abilities of students with ASD. A recent study by Raswiliani (2021) demonstrated the success of the Direct Instruction Strategy for teaching reading, with students reporting improvements in their reading abilities.

In order to effectively implement Direct Instruction (DI), teachers should seek guidance from the National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI). NIFDI provides valuable training opportunities, tools, and information related to DI. The process of instruction consists of two sections: the first section provides an overview of the necessary actions schools must take prior to the beginning of classes to prepare for a DI implementation. In contrast, the second section provides an overview of the steps schools must take once classes have commenced. In addition, "SRA Direct Instruction" from McGraw-Hill Education is an outstanding source of information. Reading Mastery, a component of the Direct Instruction program from SRA/McGraw-Hill, delivers systematic reading instruction for students in grades K–6. Reading Mastery can be implemented as a stand-alone reading curriculum, an addition to a school's core reading program, or an intervention program for struggling readers. Although Direct Instruction (DI) can offer practical benefits as a curriculum component, its implementation at the Dubai Autism Center has revealed specific challenges and drawbacks. While teachers have noted that this approach can help students, it is essential to establish a solid foundation to build a strong comprehension of the subject matter. DI emphasizes the mastery of specific skills and concepts, making it an effective way to achieve this. Its structured approach offers a defined lesson plan and concrete teaching techniques, fostering a focused learning atmosphere and ensuring regularity.”

Conclusion

Based on the results of the qualitative inquiry, the study has drawn the following conclusions. First, Direct Instruction is a structured teaching approach that involves clear and concise lesson plans, scripted materials, and continuous student assessment. This approach is considered to be highly effective because it enables students to learn and master essential concepts and skills systematically and sequentially. Direct Instruction is particularly helpful for reading and language development, as it provides students with explicit instruction in phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. By breaking down complex skills into manageable steps, students can build their knowledge and understanding, and develop the confidence and competence needed to become proficient readers and effective communicators. Second, the strengths of DI as an instructional approach are that it utilizes a fixed and structured curriculum to teach students a variety of methods including reading, phonetics, and phonics development. The structured approach of DI has helped promote consistency and ensure that all students receive the same level of instruction.

Effectiveness of Using DI in Teaching Students with ASD

R.1 Is DI helpful and effective for your students diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder?

DI is very helpful for our kids because they tend to follow instructions better. Following Instructions Enabling reading, language

R2 Direct Instruction can be effective development. and it can also be beneficial for the students depending on the individual preferences. Benefiting individual preferences

R3 It’s like a fixed program. Like it's the same everywhere. No matter like here in UK and Canada, it's the same thing. It follows the same error correction procedures and that's why it's suitable for children with autism. Structured and uniformed format Suiting for children

R4 It helps the child how to pronounce the word, how to start saying the sound of the letters first, and then it will go further for words. I find this very useful for the kid. Fostering reading development

R5 It has been efficient, especially when you're looking at the language development. We have seen that the kids that we are running with, they show massive development and massive improvement when it comes to their language and general comprehension of the events that are happening around them. Developing language development

R6 It's very helpful and effective because we're reinforcing their language, their Reinforcing language Calunangan and Sonsona vocabulary and all of that. Plus, they're seated collectively and they're being encountered by their friends and they're answering questions, all of them together.

R7 It was quite successful for the certain students, of course, there are some limitations especially when the students are non-verbal. They progress a little bit slower than the others, but in general, yes, it’s quite effective. Imposing certain limitations of course, it is helpful for almost 90% of kids, especially the sentences making them do the sentences independently. Improving their sentence construction.”

Calunangan, Fely & Sonsona, Ramir Philip Jones. (2025). Determining the Effectiveness of Direct Instruction in Developing the Reading Skills of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse. 1-15. 10.29173/cjfy30092.

What does evidence-based practice in education mean?

“Teaching has suffered both as a profession in search of community respect and as a force for improving the social capital of Australia, because of its failure to adopt the results of empirical research as the major determinant of its practice. There are a number of reasons why this has occurred, among them a science-aversive culture endemic among education policymakers and teacher education faculties. There are signs that change may be afoot. The National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy has pointed to, and urged us to follow, a direction similar to that taken recently in Great Britain and the USA towards evidence-based practice. Acknowledging the importance of teacher education, the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership began a process for establishing national accreditation of pre-service teacher education. Two problems do require attention. The generally low quality of much educational research in the past has made the process of evaluating the evidence difficult, particularly for those teachers who have not the training to discriminate sound from unsound research designs. Fortunately, there are a number of august bodies that have performed the sifting process to simplify judging the value of research on important educational issues.”

Hempenstall, Kerry. (2006). What does evidence-based practice in education mean?. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities. 11. 83-92. 10.1080/19404150609546811.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233936486_What_does_evidence-based_practice_in_education_mean

Hempenstall, K. (2013). What is the place for national assessment in the prevention and resolution of reading difficulties? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(2), 105–121.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1024451

https://www.nifdi.org/resources/hempenstall-blog/dr-hempenstall.html

**********************************************************************************

I hope the topic has some value!