TEACHING OF SPELLING

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25160, 16 April 1947, Page 3

TEACHING OF SPELLING

MINIMAL LISTS ADVOCATED

REMOVING “ MENTAL LUMBER”

“Severe criticism has been levelled by experts on those who assign lists of a dozen or more words for home learning, with testing on the following day. Much of this criticism is justified, for in too many schools testing of such home-learned lists predominates. This is not teaching spelling,” says the draft report of the Spelling Revision Committee appointed by the Education Department, which has been submitted to teachers for comment. “The real teaching of spelling implies an organised plan of attack upon useful words, with opportunity for a follow up. The emphasis to-day must be on teaching, not testing; on those words that will he of real use to the pupil; on thoroughness; and finally on a realisation that the true test of any spelling method lies in the ability of the pupil to reproduce correctly in his written exercises all those words common to his stage of development.” Modern spelling books from overseas, produced after special investigations, provide carefully-selected and graded minimal word lists in place of haphazard collections, many of which prove to be little more than “mental lumber,” the committee says. To speak, to listen, or to read the pupil need not be able to spell correctly; but to write he should have this knowledge. It was therefore the child’s writing requirements which governed his instruction in spelling. Recent investigations showed that an average child’s writing vocabulary commonly lagged a year (in the junior stage) to three or four years (in senior classes) behind his reading vocabulary. In approaching its revision, the committee felt that in too many cases the conduct of the spelling period in schools was uneconomic in both time and effort, chiefly through haphazard selection of words and lack of sound teaching methods. The frequent use of the school journal and other standard material to supply words showed the need for a carefully-graded minimal spelling list for all primary schools. Notable investigations all overwhelmingly favoured this scheme. One of the authorities quoted says that by teaching 3500 to 4000 words, 98 to 99 per cent, of the running words a child would be called upon to write could be anticipated, but by teaching 10,000 more teachers could not guarantee to prepare him for the other 1 or 2 per cent.

Children’s Differing Abilities The report deals exhaustively with schemes of teaching for school staffs, emphasising the need for special treatment of children of differing abilities. After systematic development in spelling vocabulary, it is suggested that pupils bq encouraged to consult standard works rather than "take a chance.” thereby developing sound practice in the use of dictionaries and other references, which will be of value later in life. Short, frequent periods of instructions are preferred to longer sessions at greater intervals. In modern findings on spelling, the committee notes that less emphasis is now placed on rules in spelling. Primary school teachers should not be required to anticipate all the requirements of the post-primary schools, nor should the latter be asked to deal with the wide range of highly-soeciaiised ar }H Purely-technical language which is the particular province of®the commercial and industrial world, the report says. However, employers and post-primary teachers are entitled to expect pupils to be thoroughly instructed in every-day written language and to be equipped with the right to w ard : Jearning spelling in Sr e »H rat !°? fo ,l. the Particular demands of their later life.