Chapter published in:
Developmental Perspectives in Written Language and Literacy: In honor of Ludo Verhoeven
Edited by Eliane Segers and Paul van den Broek
[Not in series 206] 2017

How to teach children reading and spelling

| | Behavioural Science Institute and School of Educational Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | Stichting TGM, Zuthpen, the Netherlands
The effectiveness of the Dutch reading and spelling didactic ‘How to teach children reading and spelling’ (HTCRS), developed by Schraven (1994/2013) was empirically tested in children attending special education. HTCRS is based on the principles of direct and classroom instruction, and the task analysis of reading and spelling. Reading and spelling performance of first-grade pupils from three different schools was longitudinally tested from the beginning until the end of the first school year. There were no differences in literacy skills at the beginning, but at the end of the year substantially better performance emerged for those pupils who received instruction according to the HTCRS approach. Theoretically-based principles underlying HTRCS are presented as well as the main aspects of the didactics.
Keywords: reading, spelling, direct instruction, classroom instruction, task analysis, primary (special) education, experiment, Dutch language
Published online: 21 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.206.17bos
References

References

Bleichrodt, N., Drenth, P. J. D., Zaal, J. N., & Resing, W. C. M.
(1984) Revisie Amsterdamse Kinder Intelligentie Test, RAKIT [Revision Amsterdam Child Intelligence Test]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Bosman, A. M. T.
(2007) Zo leer je kinderen lezen en spellen [How to teach children reading and spelling]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 46, 451–465.Google Scholar
(2009) Gerichte instructie in lezen en spellen voorkomt lees- en spellingproblemen bij (vrijwel) alle leerlingen op ‘Het Kofschip’ [Direct instruction in reading and spelling prevents reading and spelling problems in (almost) all students at ‘Het Kofschip’]. Retrieved December 21, 2015 from http://​www​.annabosman​.eu​/documents​/Bosman2009​_001​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Callcott, D., Hammond, L., & Hill, S.
(2015) The synergistic effect of teaching a combined explicit movement and phonological awareness program to preschool aged students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 201–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaiklin, S.
(2003) The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and lnstruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky‘s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J.
(2012) Putting students on the path to learning. The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36, 6–12.Google Scholar
Haenen, J.
(1998) Piotr Gal’perins visie op de vormgeving van onderwijsleerprocessen [Piotr Gal’perin’s view on the creation of educational learning processes]. Pedagogische Studiën, 75, 238–249.Google Scholar
Hattie, J.
(2009) Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heward, W. L.
(2003) Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 186–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S.
(2009) Explicit direct instruction. The power of the well-crafted, well-taught lesson. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E.
(2014) Models of teaching (9th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kalverboer, A. F., & Deelman, B. G.
(1986) De 15-woordentests A en B [The 15-words tests A and B]. Groningen, The Netherlands: Academisch Ziekenhuis.Google Scholar
Lankhorst, W., Bosman, A. M. T., & Didden, R.
(2008) Het effect van twee instructiemethoden op lees en spellingvaardigheden bij kinderen met een lichte tot matige verstandelijke beperking [The effect of two instruction methods on the reading and spelling skills of children with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Zorg aan Verstandelijk Gehandicapten, 34, 181–193.Google Scholar
Lemov, D.
(2010) Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that puts students on the path to college (K-12). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K.
(2005) Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 41–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L.
(2001) Failures to learn and their remediation: A Hebbian account. In J. L. McClelland & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 97–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R.
(1996) Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders, 16, 73–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, S. J., & Gathercole, S. E.
(2001) The working memory test battery for children. The WMTB-C. Londen, UK: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Raven, J. C.
(1958) Standard progessive matrices. London, UK: H. K. Lewis.Google Scholar
Schraven, J. L. M.
(2000) Gerichte instructie geeft betere resultaten bij lezen én spellen [Direct instruction leads to better reading and spelling results]. Zorg Primair, 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
(2013) Zo leer je kinderen lezen en spellen, 8e druk [How to teach children reading and spelling, 8th ed.]. Zuthpen, the Netherlands: TGM.Google Scholar
Simon, D. P.
(1976) Spelling - A task analysis. Instructional Science, 5, 277–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sontag, L., & Donker, M.
(2012) Dyslexie en dyscalculie in het voortgezet onderwijs. Herhaalde meting [Dyslexia and dyscalculia in secondary education. Repeated measure]. ‘s Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands: KPC.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E.
(1986) Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Struiksma, A. J. C.
(1979) Leren lezen, een taakanalyse [Learning to read, a task analysis]. In J. de Wit, H. Bolle, & J. M. van Meel (Eds.), Psychologen over het kind, deel 6 (pp. 121–142). Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Teuwen, J. H. J.
(2007) De staat van het onderwijs. Onderwijsverslag 2005/2006 [The status of Education. Educational report 2005/2006]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.Google Scholar
van Bon, W. H. J., Bouwmans, M., & Broeders, I. N. L. D. C.
(2006).The prevalence of poor reading in Dutch special elementary education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 482–495. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, R. M., & te Lintelo, H. G.
(1977) AVI: Analyse van Individualiseringsvormen [Analysis of individualisation forms]. ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands: KPC.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, L., Gillijns, P., Krom, R., & Moelands, F.
(1991) SVS: Schaal Vorderingen in Spellingvaardigheid [Scales on progress of spelling skills]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L.
(1994) Drie Minuten Toets [Three Minutes Test]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Walda, Sietske, Marjolijn van Weerdenburg, Ad van der Ven & Anna Bosman
2021. Literacy Progress in Children with Dyslexia and the Role of Attention. Reading & Writing Quarterly ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.