"...if we have students who are struggling with the spelling and the handwriting, they are putting so much attention to that, that there isn't much left to focus on the composing" (Sedita, 2023). 

So what do we do? How do we teach transcription skills effectively?

Podcast:  The Writing Rope with Joan Sedita (transcription section), 38:49 total

First, we need to zoom out to consider the literacy development continuum:

Proposal of Integrated Model for Literacy Development

Reading and writing skills development has fascinated educational researchers for many years. Tremendous developments have been made in the field as new technologies become available that allow scientists to watch brain activity whilst reading. This has allowed for a clearer understanding of how the brain does and does not learn to read, with many resultant implications for teaching. Of particular interest in this paper are the integrated and interactive model of reading and writing by Kim (2020), the Active View of Reading model (Duke & Cartwright, 2021), the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001), the Writing Rope (Sedita, 2021), the Nested Skills Model of Relations Among Invented Spelling, Accurate Spelling, and Word Reading (Sénéchal, 2017), and the Ladder of Reading and Writing (Young, 2023). 

I propose a model that includes the simultaneous and multidirectional development of reading, writing, oral language, and accompanying cognitive functions in young children. This model, while needing robust testing, might support educators in considering a more nuanced continuum of literate behaviour development when planning instruction. The model will be different from others in that it will tease out where the skill strands tend to emerge from birth to emergent reader - the incredibly critical years of development that lay foundations for skill acquisition, feelings about, attitudes towards receptive and communicative language. This will help educators and supporting decision makers have a better understanding of what skills to teach when and what benchmarks to assess for learning planning.

The model I propose integrates the reading and writing ropes of Scarborough (2001) and Sedita (2017??) and is connected by the domain general cognitive function skills of Duke and Cartwright’s Active View of Reading (2021). It teases out the strands of the integrated rope model in correlation with the stages of children’s general language development from in utero to developing reader, as opposed to emergent reader, allowing for the comforting confirmation through robust testing that emergent skills will effectively integrate into skilled reading. 

For the purposes of this particular article, the discussion will focus on the transcription strand of development, and particularly on the importance of invented spelling for beginning readers and writers. The proposed model will only be developed insofar as it supports the emerging integration of language comprehension and encoding skills through invented spelling. Much work needs to be done to further develop and test the rest of the model.

The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986)

Existing Reading & Writing Models

The Reading and Writing Ropes of Scarborough (2001) and Sedita are very helpful models for educators because they expand upon the aptly named Simple View of Reading (Gough and Tunmer, 1986) and the Simple View of Writing (Berninger et al., 2002; Juel, Griffth, & Gough, 1986, as cited Kim & Graham, 2021, 15). The Simple Views, as theoretical literacy models, are helpful in understanding the broad strokes of what goes into skilled reading and writing - decoding or encoding multiplied by language comprehension. They cannot, however, account for all of the skills needed to become a skilled reader and writer.

According to the simple view of writing, writing is a product of two necessary skills, transcription and ideation (also called text generation; Berninger et al., 2002; Juel, Griffth, & Gough, 1986, as cited Kim & Graham, 2021, 15).

The Rope models expanded upon the Simple Views to include other skills in decoding and encoding, namely phonological awareness, sight recognition of words, transcription, and spelling. The language comprehension strand in the Reading Rope includes background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge.

 The Writing Rope does not group the remaining strands together into a language comprehension-based group, although they sort of fit under that heading. The remaining writing strands are critical thinking or ideation, syntax, text structures, writing craft, and transcription.

While both the Reading and the Writing Rope are excellent references for educators planning, monitoring, and assessing literacy skill development, these models do not take into account all of the language skills needed, nor do they account for the socio-emotional and cognitive-based skills necessary to regulate the complex processes that need to occur simultaneously. 

Kim’s Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model (2020) and Duke and Cartwright’s Active View of Reading (2023) both include the executive function and socio-emotional skills. They also include literacy skills missing from the Rope models, such as graphophonological-semantic cognitive flexibility and the explicit reference to a basis of oral language. Importantly, they also show the interactive nature of these skills as they contribute to meaning-making through reading and writing. 

Duke and Cartwright’s Active View model is perhaps easier to understand at a glance with the Venn diagram-esque layout and clear colour coding. This makes it clear for the viewer that there are skills that connect word recognition and language comprehension. Instead of belonging solely in one strand or the other, these skills bring together the decoding and meaning-making functions. 

Both models do an exemplary job of showing how critical socio-emotional and executive functioning skills are to the reading and writing process. The Active View, however, refers only to reading, while the Interactive Dynamic Literacy model reflects writing as well.

What is missing from all of these models, however, is an alignment with the benchmarks of children’s language and literacy development. It would be very helpful for educators to know what skills to scaffold for, teach, or review based on developmental benchmarks, and so the model I propose aims to incorporate oral language, reading, writing, socio-emotional and executive functioning skills along a continuum that may function as a flexible scope and sequence of sorts. 

Overview of the Model

I used the rope structure of the Reading and Writing Ropes (Scarborough, 2001, and Sedita, 2022) because these do a better job of conveying development over time than the other models using a Venn diagram or multilayered style. This may lead to a misconception that language and literacy development is linear, but I felt that the simplicity of the layout and general sequence of skill development was most important. 

The Language Comprehension and the Decoding and Encoding strands are longer than the Bridging Processes strand because oral language development begins first - in utero, in the case of phonological awareness. The length of the strands is meant to signify the stage of development at which each skill can be expected to emerge or be supported. 

The Bridging Processes strand features connectors pulling together the Language Comprehension and Decoding & Encoding strands. This replaces the overlapping circle of the Active View and the multi-directional arrows of the Interactive Dynamic Literacy model. 

The socio-emotional and executive functioning skills are represented by coiling strands that bring all of the strands closer together. What is missing at this stage are the representations of these skills in alignment with the developmental benchmarks on the rope model itself. I am not sure how to represent them without making the model too complex to be useful, and I also need to do some more checking to make sure they align with a general sequence of development that has robust evidence. For now, the skill sequence continuum is represented in grey at the bottom of the model.

Invented Spelling on the Integrated Model of Literacy Development

So where does invented spelling fit into this model? What is its place in children’s language and literacy development? As language begins naturally with speech, invented spelling likewise allows children to begin with oral language. The important thing about invented spelling is that children are allowed to do the heavy lifting to encode the word into print. 

In her 2017 work, Sénéchal formulated a nested skills model of the relationships between invented spelling, accurate spelling, and word reading from Kindergarten to Grade 1. She noted that young children progress from scribbles to representing the phonological structure of words over time (Ehri, 2005; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Genty & Gilet, 1993; Henderson, 1981; Treiman, 1993; as cited in Sénéchal, 2017, p. 362). Creating safe, supportive, and engaging opportunities for children to play with mark making and pretend writing will enable them to get going, and then encouraging them to interpret their mark making back into oral language through author sharing allows children to transition gently and playfully into connecting speech to print. 

Another reason invented spelling is important is that it offers insight into children’s understanding of how spoken language translates into phonemes. Invented spelling is suggested to be a precursor to reading acquisition as it demonstrates insight into the alphabetic principle and the development of phoneme-grapheme connections (Sénéchal, 2017, 361). Phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge are necessary precursors to invented spelling. By allowing children to do the work of segmenting a word into its phonemes, matching these sounds to phonics patterns, then encoding these patterns into print gives children a chance to practice phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge and transcription skills in context. 

Longitudinal studies have found a strong predictive relationship between children's invented spelling in kindergarten and later reading outcomes. Responses in Sénéchal’s study were scored based on a rating scale reflecting the phonetic accuracy of the spelling attempts. Invented spelling in kindergarten predicts subsequent reading and spelling beyond phonological awareness and letter knowledge. It is promising to note that training programs aimed at improving invented spelling have shown to enhance reading skills compared to control groups (Sénéchal, 2017, p. 367).

An additional study by Treiman et. al (2019) explores the predictive role of early spelling on later literacy performance in 970 U.S. children. The research reveals that post-kindergarten spelling is a significant predictor of word reading ability in subsequent grades, even after accounting for phonological awareness, letter-sound knowledge, and other pre-Grade 1 abilities. It suggests that spelling assessments provide unique insights beyond phonological measures and reading ability alone. The findings challenge the notion that spelling is solely based on phonology, emphasizing its importance in storing precise orthographic information crucial for reading. Contrary to previous beliefs, the study indicates that word-specific orthographic knowledge emerges earlier than previously thought, possibly as early as kindergarten. Overall, the study underscores the value of considering invented spelling assessments in screening for future literacy problems and highlights the significance of spelling proficiency in predicting reading success.

Invented spelling, therefore, fits into the proposed Integrated Model of Literacy Development by providing a gradual, developmentally appropriate connection between oral language, composition, graphophonological-semantic cognitive flexibility, and transcription. These skills on their own are challenging to most beginning readers and writers, but the writing process requires them to be done simultaneously, or very nearly. By beginning with play and oral language, children have a safe and developmentally appropriate place to start. 

One concern educators may have with invented spelling is that children may not spell words correctly. This certainly is true. Children using invented spelling may accurately spell phonetically consistent words but struggle with inconsistent parts, but this is to be expected and celebrated. Phonetically irregular spellings will be taught explicitly later, or may be introduced to curious little minds as appropriate. Words that are spelled incorrectly despite having consistent speech-to-print patterns offer formative insight into students’ developing skills. If the incorrectly spelled phonics pattern has not yet been taught, this is an indication that the student is reaching beyond known skills - and a celebration is in order! Guiding questions like, “Wow! We haven’t even talked about this sound yet! How did you think through writing this word?” will encourage further experimentation and help children’s metacognitive self-talk development, as well as fostering an environment in which risk-taking is celebrated.

If the incorrectly spelled phonics pattern has been taught, further teaching and review of the pattern will be helpful. This work might be best done during small group instruction when the focus is on phonics. During writer’s workshop, the focus is most likely on language communication skills like gathering and organizing ideas and composing them into sentences. 

This is not the time to point out the error to the child as it takes the focus away from the task at hand, increasing the cognitive load and thereby leaving less capacity for higher-level thinking. It also sets the stage for dependent writers, waiting to be told whether their efforts are right or wrong. It may seem helpful and supportive to give a child the correct spelling to copy down and hopefully memorize for the future, but this is not an effective practice in the long run. 

Instead, it would make more sense to guide the child’s compositional thinking during writer’s workshop, and bring their attention to misspelled words in a safe and caring manner during phonics instruction or one-on-one. 

Have the child say the word and tap the number of sounds in the word on their fingers (or use manipulatives as needed). Then, tap the letters in the word they wrote and say the sounds together. The child will hopefully hear the missing or substituted sounds. If not, the teacher can say the incorrect sounds again and blend them together into an incorrect word. This word or nonsense word will not match the meaning the child had in mind, and so then can be guided back through tapping the sounds of the word they actually wanted, spelling the sounds they know independently, then simply and briefly being shown the correct graphemes for the sounds they don’t know how to spell. This process honours the meaning the child wants to convey, confirms the knowledge they have, and teaches or re-teaches the information they need.

The proposed model, with further development and testing, might provide insight into the developmental trajectory of literacy skills, emphasizing the importance of early interventions and the role of invented spelling as a precursor to skilled reading and writing.

Other examples of (potentially tidier) engaging experiences might include:

References

Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Graham S, Richards T. Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2002;35:39–56. 

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). The Active View of Reading. Nell K. Duke. Retrieved April 4, 2024, from https://www.nellkduke.org/the-active-view-of-reading

Farrell, L. (2024). The Simple View of Reading. Reading Rockets. Retrieved April 4, 2024, from https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/about-reading/articles/simple-view-reading

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special 

            Education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

Juel C, Griffith PL, Gough PB. Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1986;78:243–255.

Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model: An Integrative Theoretical Framework for Reading-Writing Relations. Literacy Studies, 19(0), 11-34. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https.//doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_2

Kim, Y.-S. G., & Graham, S. (2021). Expanding the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Writing (DIEW): Reading-Writing Relations, and Dynamic Relations as a Function of Measurement/Dimensions of Written Composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, Advance Online Publication, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000564

Sedita, J. (2022). The Writing Rope: A Framework for Explicit Writing Instruction in All Subjects. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Sénéchal, M. (2017). Testing a nested skills model of the relations among invented spelling, accurate spelling, and word reading, from kindergarten to grade 1. EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE,, 187(3-4), 358-370. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1205044

Treiman, R., Hulslander, J., Olson, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., Byrne, B., & Kessler, B. (2019). The Unique Role of Early Spelling in the Prediction of Later Literacy Performance. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(5), 437-444. https://doi.org./10.1080/10888438.2019.1573242

Young, N., & Hasbrouck, J. (Eds.). (2023). Climbing the Ladder of Reading & Writing. Benchmark Education.