Method

1
Environmental Print Spelling Ability A Case
for Evidence-Based Practice Sherri Franklin-Guy,
PhD, Wichita State University Rosalind R.
Scudder, PhD, CCC-SLP, Wichita State
University Kenn Apel, PhD, CCC-SLP, Florida State
University

• Method
• Participants 40 kindergarteners 54 to 611
  typical hearing and receptive vocabulary
  Procedures
• Participants instructed to spell 10 dictated
  words (5 common, 5 environmental) using lined
  paper and pencils
• Order of words counterbalanced across categories
  and randomized within categories
• For each prompt, investigator instructed the
  students to Write the word _____ here.
• No help given other than to repeat the word
• One environmental and one common spelling that
  least resembled the target word selected for
  repair procedure
• Students were instructed to try to write it
  better (repair procedure)
• Stimulus words elephant, ball, cowboy hat,
  chicken, milk (common) McDonalds, Stop, Pizza
  Hut, Wal Mart, M Ms (environmental)
• Scoring calculated using the Emerging Spelling
  Scale (ESS) (Bain et. al, 1991 Wolter et. al,
  2005) and the Phonological Skeleton Scale
  (Treiman Bourassa, 2000)

• Results
• -Paired t-tests on ESS
• Common words spelling significantly more
  accurate - t(39)5.14, plt.05
• Significant difference between initial and
  repair spellings of common words - t(39)3.32,
  plt.05
• No significant difference between repair
• spellings for two types of words
  
• -Paired t-tests on Phonological Skeleton Scale
• Common words spelling significantly more accurate
  - t(39)8.19, plt.05
• Significant difference between repair spellings
  for two types of words- t(38)2.48, plt.05
• Significant difference between initial and repair
  spellings of common words - t(38)11.96, plt.05
• Significant difference between initial and repair
  spellings of environmental words - t(39)7.21,
  plt.05

• Conclusion
• Children produced more accurate spellings for
  common words, possibly due to
• Similar if not additional exposure to common
  words
• Their age or linguistic level they may have been
  using phonemic awareness (PA) and orthographic
  knowledge (OK) vs. stored mental orthographic
  images (MOIs)
• Requests for repairs did not result in more
  accurate spellings, possibly due to
• The prompt (write vs. spell)
• Less flexibility linguistic (PA. OK, or MOI)
  knowledge
• Future research should investigate
• Younger childrens spellings of environmental vs.
  common words
• The effects of prompts on childrens written
  repairs

• Introduction
• Research examining the effect of environmental
  print on word reading indicates that logo words
  from environmental print (e.g., Wendys, Kmart)
  are more readily learned than common control
  words (Cronin, Farrell, Delaney, 1999)
• Many researchers believe that recognition of logo
  words from environmental print constitute the
  earliest stage of reading (Hiebert, 1978 McGee,
  1986 Neuman Roskos, 1997 Sulzby Teale,
  1991)
• Fewer studies have examined the effect of
  environmental print on childrens spelling
  abilities
• Purpose of the Study
• To compare kindergarten childrens spellings of
  well-known environmental words (i.e., McDonalds)
  to their spellings of common non-environmental
  words (i.e., elephant)
• To examine the influence of environmental print
  on childrens repairs of their spellings
• Research Questions
• -Do children differ in their spellings of common
  and environmental words?
• -Do children differ in their repairs of common
  and environmental spellings?
• -Does the repair of the common and environmental
  spellings result in a more
• accurate spelling?

.