Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Examining the relations between teacher level factors and the use of spelling instruction and assessment practices.

Created on 23 Jul 2026

Authors

Ramona T Pittman, Heesun Chang, Kimberly Wright, Misty Stiles, Taylor Seymour, Emily Binks-Cantrell, R Malatesha Joshi

Published in

Annals of dyslexia. Jul 23, 2026. Epub Jul 23, 2026.

Abstract

This study investigated elementary teachers' spelling activity and assessment practices and examined how these practices relate to teachers' spelling knowledge, self-efficacy in teaching spelling, and instructional philosophy. Survey responses were collected from 324 K to 5 teachers in a diverse urban district, including open-ended descriptions of spelling activities and scoring methods. Responses were analyzed and categorized into eight instructional activity types and five scoring approaches. Descriptive and multinomial logistic regression analyses revealed that teachers' activity choices were more strongly associated with their self-efficacy and philosophy in teaching spelling than with their formal spelling knowledge. Teachers with stronger philosophical beliefs were more likely to report linguistically informed practices (e.g., Word Sorts), while those with higher self-efficacy tended to favor traditional spelling activities (e.g., worksheet-based tasks). Scoring practices showed a preference for partial-credit approaches, though many still used traditional right/wrong grading. Spelling knowledge showed a marginal association with nuanced scoring that goes beyond mere right-or-wrong evaluations, but all three traits (i.e., spelling knowledge, self-efficacy, and philosophy) did not significantly predict scoring methods. These findings suggest that teacher education should address not only spelling knowledge but also self-efficacy and philosophy to support evidence-based spelling practices.

PMID:
42489779
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 23 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 5
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement