Abstract
This study explores the ability of children with and without dyslexia to provide meaningful verbal self-reports of the strategies they used in a spelling recognition task. Sixty-six children aged 6 years 3 months–9 years 9 months were tested on a range of standardised measures and on an experimental spelling recognition task based on the work of Critten, Pine, and Steffler [Critten, S., Pine, K., & Steffler, D. (2007). Spelling development in young children: A case of representational redescription? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 207–220]. Children identified with dyslexia (n = 22, mean age 8 years 10 months) were compared to two typically developing groups of children: the first matched by age (n = 22, 8 years 11 months), the second by spelling ability (n = 22, 7 years 5 months). In the recognition task, children were asked to identify the correct spelling of the target word from three phonologically and/or orthographically plausible alternatives and to verbally self-report the strategy they used when approaching the task. Their strategies were identified with reference to Rittle-Johnson and Siegler [Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and change in children’s strategy use. Child Development, 70, 332–348]. All of the children in the study were able to provide meaningful self-reports. Results suggest that children with dyslexia are less likely to use the same range of strategies as typically developing children and more likely to use a sounding out (i.e. phonetic strategy) when approaching the task of spelling identification. We conclude that an assessment protocol for spelling that incorporates verbal self-report seems a promising way forward in providing in-depth qualitative information for targeted support. Further, the data suggest that it may be useful to explicitly teach a range of strategies to children with dyslexia when supporting them with their spelling.
Acknowledgement
Thank you to all of the participating schools and children. We are grateful to the Guest Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on previous versions of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.