The Word Nerds project: Findings from a research–practice partnership focused on spelling instruction

Abstract

Learning to spell in English requires the integration of general and specific word knowledge. This paper describes the ‘Word Nerds’ project, a research–practice partnership consisting of two researchers from a large public university and 17 elementary teachers in seven school districts in the United States. The collaboration was formed to study variation in instructional practice among teachers using the Words Their Way programme and address teacher-generated questions related to how children learn to spell words. This paper describes how stakeholders worked together to understand (1) what grouping and organisational structures teachers use for spelling instruction, (2) the extent to which elementary students use analogy to spell unknown words that share spelling patterns with known words and (3) the affordances and challenges of a partnership approach to educational research. Data collection took place over one school year. Data sources included teacher focus groups, classroom observations and student formative spelling assessment data (n = 178). Analyses included descriptive statistics, t-tests and multilevel modelling, nesting spelling items in students in classrooms. Findings indicated that classroom observation scores for grouping, teacher talk, student-to-student talk, reflection and student engagement during spelling lessons varied depending on format (whole group, small group or pair/individual). Students showed evidence of spelling by analogy, but this strategy was associated in part with the semantic difficulty of the target words. Instructional practices for spelling vary based on teachers' priorities, and teachers need support to implement and prioritise evidence-based practices. Conducting research in partnership allowed the researchers to observe and understand variation in implementation of a popular spelling programme and to develop and answer research questions that mattered to teachers; however, it also limited the size, scope and location of the project.