Improving spelling through a better understanding of word structure

This digest found in

How did the teachers change as a result of the training?

At the end of the course, teachers thought that as well as knowledge of sound-letter connections being important, they also acknowledged that teaching children about word structure also had important benefits for 7 to 11 year olds. All but one of the teachers said that the training had changed their approach to teaching spelling and most said that they would explicitly teach connections between spelling, word structure and meaning. At the end of the course teachers said they intended to change their practice in several ways, including:

taking spelling more seriously by, for example, focusing one literacy session per week on spelling;
regarding spelling as having more creative possibilities such as class discussions and investigations;
using computer-generated materials as a fun and effective way of teaching spelling; and
using spelling journals to help children explore different morphemes within a variety of words.

The teachers were also more confident in talking about word structure and morphemes than before the study. The researchers were unable to determine whether or not the change in practice was sustained beyond the training but feared that in many cases it was not. Although seven teachers intended to continue meeting after the training, they found getting together twice a term to share practice, difficult to maintain, and only three of the seven teachers systematically used the materials after the main study was over.

Your path: Home > Welcome to The Research Informed Practice Site (TRIPS) > Themes > English > Improving spelling through a better understanding of word structure > How did the teachers change as a result of the training?
Research Home Themes \| Find digests \| About the digests resources glossary researchers contact TRIPS Introduction What were the aims of the training and what impact did it have on teachers and pupils? How aware were the teachers of word structure before the training? How did the teachers change as a result of the training? Were there links between children's improved spelling and the training? What were the aims and design of the study? What training did the teachers receive to improve their knowledge of word structure? How did the teachers raise children's awareness of word structure in lessons? What are the implications? Where can I find out more? Glossary Send us your feedback Collated digests To view/remove/add notes and save your collated digests click here Get Word Reader Improving spelling through a better understanding of word structure This digest found in English Send to a friend Word doc 90KB Printer friendly Collate for later How did the teachers change as a result of the training? At the end of the course, teachers thought that as well as knowledge of sound-letter connections being important, they also acknowledged that teaching children about word structure also had important benefits for 7 to 11 year olds. All but one of the teachers said that the training had changed their approach to teaching spelling and most said that they would explicitly teach connections between spelling, word structure and meaning. At the end of the course teachers said they intended to change their practice in several ways, including: taking spelling more seriously by, for example, focusing one literacy session per week on spelling; regarding spelling as having more creative possibilities such as class discussions and investigations; using computer-generated materials as a fun and effective way of teaching spelling; and using spelling journals to help children explore different morphemes within a variety of words. The teachers were also more confident in talking about word structure and morphemes than before the study. The researchers were unable to determine whether or not the change in practice was sustained beyond the training but feared that in many cases it was not. Although seven teachers intended to continue meeting after the training, they found getting together twice a term to share practice, difficult to maintain, and only three of the seven teachers systematically used the materials after the main study was over.