Reading and spelling skills are highly interrelated (Shankweiler, Lundquist, Dreyer, & Dickinson, 1996). Reading skills, as it could be said, is the ability to decode written symbols into sounds and spelling skills is the ability to decode spoken sounds into symbols. In this relationship, it could be inferred that they are positively related, that is, improvement in one entails improvement of the other as well. The succeeding discussion will be an exploration of both reading and spelling skills.

            If reading and spelling skills are to be mastered, skills that are linked to spoken language are most important (Shankweiler & Liberman, 1972). This means that to find a distinction between readers and non-readers, one must base it to the skills in recognition of words that learners have acquired. Needless to say, reading can only be done when words in printed form are recognized by the learners and that which recognition of such is transformed into sound. It is, therefore, assumed that the center of reading in a system that is highly alphabetical is a set of skills for decoding the phonological and morphological structure of the words in printed form (Gough & Hillinger, 1980). Furthermore, they maintain that only learners who are able to exhibit this decoding process could be said to have acquired a working knowledge and skill in utilizing the alphabetic system as could be shown by their capacity to decode new or unfamiliar printed words.

            Despite proofs showing that in order to obtain fluency or mastery in decoding words requires long years of training and a large amount of practice, there is an assumption that majority of learners exposed to simple or ordinary learning opportunities will attain this fluency before the elementary level ends (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). The implication of this assumption is the irrelevancy of training or learning experiences in attaining fluency in word recognition. Gough and Tunmer (1986) seem to negate the significance of exposure and opportunities as it could be logically inferred from their observation that they are even simpler ones could result to a mastery of the word recognition skills. Erroneous as it may seem, this is the case in terms of learning the vernacular language. The landscape will change when the subject of fluency is a foreign language or second language in that sense. However, their assumption becomes the basis of interpreting the difficulties in reading and writing that learners experience later.

While word recognition is said to have been mastered sometime in elementary level as it was mentioned in the above assumption, a more serious problem arises in high school, that is, problem in comprehension (Brock, 1995). Since it is readily acceptable that word recognition and comprehension are two distinct skills, it would not be wrong to suppose that no matter how high the level of mastery learners have attained of the former, it could not be assured of the same level as the latter. This is the main reason why studies that investigate reading problems among high school students and even adult ones have their focus not on word recognition but on comprehension. Fowler and Scarborough (1993), however, argue that it would wrong, given the data available, to harbor the presumption that post-elementary or adult learners have acquired mastery in word recognition and spelling. Some other studies support this view (Finucci, Gottfredson, & Childs, 1985; Scarborough, 1990).

In their study, Finucci et al. (1985) found that word recognition skills of high school learners are not enough to support comprehension that is so characteristic of their level. This means that to really evaluate the comprehension skills of learners in this level, it would be similarly necessary to measure their spelling and word recognition skills as they are significant aspects of the difficulties in comprehension. Also, it entails the stance that there is much need for reconsideration of the previous assumption especially that many learners end their formal training in schools even before high school. Assessing the word recognition and spelling skills of students both in the elementary and high school level is path that would highly contribute to the understanding of the problems thus posed by the previous assumptions.

            Another study conducted by Juel, Griffith, and Gough (1986) examined the relationships between orthography and spelling skills and comprehension. They found that knowledge of how the orthography represents the phonology of words is largely based both in word recognition and spelling skills. In effect, Juel et al. (1986) are saying that reading in terms of word recognition and writing in terms of spelling skills are foundational in developing or improving comprehension.

            As it has been put earlier, word recognition and spelling skills are highly interrelated (Shankweiler et al., 1996). Juel et al. (1986) support this claim by saying that reading and spelling skills are highly correlated. However, they added that these abilities will diverge at a later age. This statement is based on one of their findings that spelling entails a much more stringent assessment of orthographic ability than reading. This is logical, they argue, because for learners to be able to recognize printed words with accuracy and precision, they must not only come up with a seemingly correct spelled word but one that is really correct based on the conventions of language.

Because word recognition is highly correlated with spelling in neophyte readers (Stage & Wagner, 1992), it is very significant to take into great consideration if the word recognition skills’ relationship or close association with spelling skills in experienced readers are retain in the long run. Similarly, it is important to ask whether that relationship is able to explain accounts of individual differences (Shankweiler et al., 1996).

References

Brock, M. N. (1995). Computerised text analysis: Roots and research.Computer Assisted Language Learning,8(2-3), 227-258.

Finucci, J. M., Gottfredson, L. S., & Childs, B. (1985). A follow-up study of dyslexic boys.Annals of dyslexia,35(1), 117-136.

Fowler, A. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (1993). Should reading-disabled adults be distinguished from other adults seeking literacy instruction.A review of theory and research, 93-6.

Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act.Annals of Dyslexia,30(1), 179 196.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability.Remedial and special education,7(1), 6-10.

Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade.Journal of educational psychology,78(4), 243.

Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children.Child development,61(6), 1728-1743.

Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1972). Misreading: A search for causes.

Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences.Reading and Writing,8(3), 267-294.

Stage, S. A., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Development of young children’s phonological and orthographic knowledge as revealed by their spellings.Developmental Psychology,28(2), 287.

By: Aaron James B. De Leon