589847

research-article2015
LDXXXX10.1177/0022219415589847Journal of Learning DisabilitiesSchiff et al.

Article
Journal of Learning Disabilities

Metacognitive Strategies: A Foundation

1­–15
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015
Reprints and permissions:
for Early Word Spelling and Reading in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219415589847

Kindergartners With SLI journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com

Rachel Schiff, PhD1, Yohi Nuri Ben-Shushan, MA1, and Elisheva Ben-Artzi, PhD2

Abstract
This study assessed the effect of metacognitive instruction on the spelling and word reading of Hebrew-speaking children
with specific language impairment (SLI). Participants were 67 kindergarteners with SLI in a supported learning context.
Children were classified into three spelling instruction groups: (a) metalinguistic instruction (ML), (b) ML that integrates
metacognitive strategies (MCML), and (c) a control group. Letter naming, letter sounding, word spelling, and word
recognition were assessed at pretest and posttest. Findings from spelling and reading tests as well as interviews indicated
that both the ML and MCML groups made statistically significant gains in all measures, whereas the control group did
not. However, children with SLI who received training in metacognitive strategies significantly outperformed those who
received ML alone in spelling and reading skills. This study provides evidence that children with SLI benefit from applying
of metacognitive strategies to spelling practices when acquiring early spelling and reading skills.

Keywords
metacognitive awareness, metacognitive strategies, metalinguistic awareness, intervention, spelling, specific language
impairment

Specific language impairment (SLI) is a persistent develop-
mental disorder that is diagnosed when delays appear in
oral language skills (Bishop, 1997, 2002; Leonard, 1998).
As SLI is not a homogenous condition (Laws & Bishop,
2003), young children with SLI demonstrate learning defi-
cits and poor performance on various language tasks
(Catts, Hogan, & Adolf, 2005; Gray, 2004), including, but
are not limited to, deficits or a combination of deficits in
phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics
(Nathan, Stackhouse, Goulandris, & Snowling, 2004;
Naucler, 2004). Given the relationship between spoken and
written language, children with SLI are also at high risk of
literacy disabilities. The more acute and persistent the oral
impairment, the greater the likelihood of observing a severe
reading and writing disorder (Bishop, 2001; Simkin &
Conti-Ramsden, 2006; Snowling, Bishop, & Stothard,
2000; Vandewalle, Boets, Boons, Ghesquière, & Zink,
2012).
Studies on the spelling performance of children with SLI
have shown a significantly higher level of spelling mistakes
in the children’s writing (e.g., Bishop & Clarkson, 2003).
However, recent studies indicate that children with SLI
function lower than age-matched and similarly to spelling
level-matched controls (Cordewener, Bosman, &
Verhoeven, 2012; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004). The finding
that they function similarly to spelling level-matched
controls strengthens the bidirectional model of spelling
abilities and reading. On one hand, children’s knowledge of
grapheme–phoneme correspondences and their phonologi-
cal awareness promote their reading development. On the
other hand, children might learn how to spell through their
reading experience (Cordewener et al., 2012; Mackie &
Dockrell, 2004). Recent studies have shown that while chil-
dren with SLI consistently spell the root morphemes of
inflected and derived words similarly to or worse than a
spelling-matched typically developing group of children
(Critten, Connelly, Dockrell, & Walter, 2014; Deacon et al.,
2014; Goodwin, Gilbert, & Cho, 2013), when it comes to
particular aspects of morphology such as suffixes, they per-
form lower than a spelling-matched typically developing
group of children (Larkin, Williams, & Blaggan, 2013;
Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; Oetting & Hadley, 2009; Scott &
1
Learning Disabilities Studies and Haddad Center for Dyslexia and
Learning Disabilities, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-
Gan, Israel
2
Psychology Department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Corresponding Author:
Rachel Schiff, Learning Disabilities Studies, Head, Haddad Center for
Dyslexia and Learning Disabilities, Head, School of Education, Bar-Ilan
University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Email: rschiff@mail.biu.ac.il

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015

2 Journal of Learning Disabilities 
Windsor, 2000; Silliman, Bahr, & Peters, 2006). Preventive
spelling instruction as early as possible is crucial for chil-
dren with SLI and is likely to enhance their spelling and
reading abilities (Cordewener et al., 2012; Rieben,
Ntamakiliro, Gonthier, & Fayol, 2005).
Despite extensive research, the underlying biological and
cognitive causes of SLI remain under debate. Two major
theoretical frameworks for the characterization of children
with SLI can be identified in the literature. Linguistic-based
theories propose that the underlying cause of SLI is a deficit
in the linguistic system and therefore exclusive to language.
These theories posit that the difficulty faced by children with
SLI is due to impairments in the phonological system (e.g.,
Fee, 1995; Marshall & van der Lely, 2007; Rice, 2004), the
grammatical system (e.g., van der Lely & Marshall, 2011;
van der Lely, Rosen, & McClelland, 1998; van der Lely &
Stollwerk, 1997), syntax (e.g., Leonard, 1998; Thordardottir,
Chapman, & Wagner, 2002; van der Lely & Battell, 2003),
and word learning (e.g., Alt & Plante, 2006; Gray, 2003,
2004; Macchi, Schelstraete, & Casalis, 2014).
Cognitive-based theories provide evidence that children
with SLI also exhibit deficits in nonverbal cognition. These
theories propose that both the linguistic and cognitive defi-
cits of children with SLI result from a nonlinguistic cogni-
tive and an executive function (EF) deficiency (e.g.,
Im-Bolter, Johnson, & Pascual-Leone, 2006). Data from
studies with children with SLI suggest that these children
might suffer from nonlinguistic difficulties. For example,
Vugs, Hendriks, Cuperus, and Verhoeven (2014) have
recently indicated that children with SLI aged 4 to 5 scored
worse than age-matched typically developing controls on
EF tasks (i.e., inhibition, shifting, emotional control, and
planning/organization) and both verbal and visuospatial
working memory (Marini, Gentili, Molteni, & Fabbro,
2014). Additional studies also found difficulties in responses
management and strategic planning (e.g., Finneran, Francis,
& Leonard, 2009; Henry, Messer, & Nash, 2011) as well as
impairments in verbal working memory among children
with SLI (e.g., Montgomery, 2000). Their reduced capacity
to store the incoming phonological information might con-
tribute to their linguistic impairments (Archibald &
Gathercole, 2007; Bishop, 2006).
In this article, we concur with the theoretical approach
that characterizes SLI as a disorder that is not isolated to the
linguistic system (e.g., Cole, Mills, & Kelley, 1994;
Krassowski & Plante, 1997; Notari, Cole, & Mills, 1992).
Based on this perspective, the current study aimed to address
both types of difficulties faced by children with SLI.
A Metalinguistic Approach to Spelling Instruction
Correct spelling is a fundamental component of successful
written communication. Learning to spell involves breaking
words down into smaller sound segments and connecting
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
these sounds to letters (Ehri & Wilce, 1987). Learning to
spell involves three metalinguistic strategies: phonological
awareness, orthographic knowledge, and grapheme–pho-
neme awareness. Phonological awareness plays a pivotal
role in spelling and reading acquisition (Ashby, 2010;
Diependaele, Ziegler, & Grainger, 2010). This linguistic
domain, which represents knowledge about the sound sys-
tem of a language, has been found to have a significant
impact on spelling (Caravolas, Vólin, & Hulme, 2005;
Plaza & Cohen, 2007). Research has indicated that children
with SLI demonstrate poor phonological processing abili-
ties (Thatcher, 2010), often due to their limited cognitive
capacity for processing sequential segments of sounds,
words, and syllables (Gathercole, Briscoe, Thorn, & Tiffany,
2008; Montgomery & Windsor, 2007). Clearly planned
instruction in phonological awareness, which practices the
ability to reflect and manipulate the sound structure of spo-
ken words, has been pinpointed as contributing to reading
and writing development both for typically developing pop-
ulations (Ouellette & Sénéchal, 2007) and for children with
SLI (Segers & Verhoeven, 2004; Tyler, Gillon, Macrae, &
Johnson, 2011).
Early alphabet knowledge is also very important, and
even predictive, in the acquisition of spelling and reading
ability (Caravolas, Hulme, & Snowling, 2001; Jones, Clark,
& Reutzel, 2012; Shatil, Share, & Levin, 2000). Teaching
alphabetical knowledge is considered to be important in the
development of spelling abilities in children with typical
development (Lervåg & Hulme, 2010; Ouellette &
Sénéchal, 2007) and with SLI (Cordewener et al., 2012).
Interventions that blend phonological awareness and alpha-
bet knowledge seem to offer utility for at-risk children (Al
Otaiba, Puranik, Zilkowski, & Curran, 2009).
Finally, phoneme–grapheme correspondence is also nec-
essary for promoting mastery of reading and spelling.
Phoneme–grapheme correspondence refers to forming
complete connections between letters in spellings and
between phonemes in pronunciations (Ehri, 2005). Children
with SLI have difficulty learning the grapheme to phoneme
association due to letters’ visual similarity and due to
sounds’ phonetic similarity (Mauer & Kamhi, 1996). Thus,
these children need explicit instruction to learn the letter–
sound connection.
Previous studies have already shown that conducting
intervention programs that work on preschool children’s
spelling has an impact on children’s early reading and spell-
ing abilities. Martins and Silva (2006; Alves Martins,
Albuquerque, Salvador, & Silva, 2013) provide direct evi-
dence of the role that invented spelling programs seem to
have in the process of learning to spell. Levin and Aram
(2013) enhanced the program for Hebrew learners by
including explanation and illustration of the circular pro-
cesses of grapheme to sound mapping along with the dis-
play of the correct spelling product. The present intervention
Schiff et al. 3
seems to promote previous intervention work by distin-
guishing metalinguistic and metacognitive practice by
examining the effect of adding specific metacognitive strat-
egies to metalinguistic teaching of spelling. In addition, the
current study was done with a special population, children
with SLI. Because children with SLI do not merely demon-
strate language-specific deficits or delays, but rather present
a general range of cognitive problems, including EF skill
deficiencies (e.g., Im-Bolter et al., 2006), we complemented
the widely used metalinguistic elements (phonological seg-
mentation and grapheme to phoneme correspondence) with
metacognitive strategies to meet their specific needs.
Metacognition and Literacy Development
Metacognition refers to the ability to think carefully and
consciously about when and how to control cognitive tasks
and is a central component of the learning process (Flavell,
1979; Lai, 2011; Montague, 2008; Montague & Applegate,
1993; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). Several pivotal
elements are necessary so that metacognitive training will
produce significant learning gains. According to the self-
regulated strategy development instructional model, explicit
teaching of self-regulation procedures in the subject matter
while emphasizing the usefulness of metacognitive strate-
gies to learners (i.e., goal definition, planning, process mon-
itoring, and product evaluation) enhances the adoption of
these procedures among learners (Graham & Harris, 2003).
Consistent practice is also crucial for ensuring the acquisi-
tion and use of metacognitive strategies (Dignath, Büttner,
& Langfeldt, 2008; A. Ellis, Denton, & Bond, 2014; Koriat,
2012). Finally, it is recommended to accompany strategy
modeling and strategy practice with verbalizations
(Scharlach, 2008). In this study, we focused on the effect of
the spelling process to establish causal relations between
metacognitive strategies and spelling and reading gains.
Another benefit of metacognitive strategies is the devel-
opment of inner speech (Winsler, 2009). Inner speech refers
to speech that one uses for various functions, but is not spo-
ken aloud. Previous studies have shown that this type of
speech may play a contributory role in the child’s success
by enhancing problem solving in challenging contexts
(Berk & Winsler, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978; Winsler, Carlton,
& Barry, 2000). For example, Jacobs (2004) investigated
the growth of young children’s metalinguistic knowledge
during the writing process by interviewing 16 kindergarten-
ers twice monthly during the school year after they finished
writing. Interview questions asked about the writing pro-
cess (e.g., “What were you thinking about while you were
writing?”). Data revealed that the quality of metacognitive
responses grew over time, and the opportunities given to
children to discuss their thinking led them to become more
effective learners who were more aware of the strategies
they were using. Such training enhances the ability of
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
learners to expand the discourse of expressing their thoughts
and monitor their thinking, and as a result they practice their
problem-solving abilities (C. B. Olson, 1992; D. R. Olson
& Astington, 1993).
In the context of spelling in Hebrew, inner speech was
also found to play a major role in children’s early spelling
abilities (Aram, Abiri, & Elad, 2014). Since children with
SLI appear to experience a significant delay in their ability
to use inner speech to mediate cognition (Lidstone, Meins,
& Fernyhough, 2012), this study also explored the growth
in metalinguistic knowledge and inner speech demonstrated
by Hebrew-speaking children who were instructed to be
conscious of their spelling process and the strategies they
were using to manage it.
Metacognitive skills such as goal definition, planning,
process monitoring, and product evaluation should there-
fore also be targeted, in addition to metalinguistic instruc-
tion, to improve the spelling proficiency of children with
SLI. The current study attempted to examine whether incor-
poration of metacognitive strategies into metalinguistic
teaching of spelling would improve the spelling and reading
performance of children with SLI to a greater extent than an
intervention that did not train children in such strategies.
Study Objective
Despite the assumed importance of metacognition, the appli-
cation of metacognitive strategies during metalinguistic
teaching of spelling skills in children with SLI has attracted
little attention. The present study examined the effect of add-
ing metacognitive strategies to metalinguistic teaching of
spelling. Applying metacognitive strategies during metalin-
guistic spelling training can serve as an effective platform
for developing children’s spelling abilities. The purpose of
this metacognitive intervention is to elucidate the contribu-
tion of linguistic and nonlinguistic skills to the spelling abili-
ties of children with SLI. Specifically, we measured the
spelling and reading abilities of three groups of Hebrew-
speaking kindergartners with SLI: a group receiving meta-
cognitive and metalinguistic-based spelling training (the
MCML group), a group receiving metalinguistic instruction
of spelling alone (the ML group), and a control group that
participated only in a vocabulary-based discussion and
drawing activity. A research design that combined quantita-
tive and interview data was used to study the effectiveness of
metacognitive practice during metalinguistic spelling train-
ing in increasing the spelling and reading abilities of
Hebrew-speaking kindergartners with SLI, compared to ML
alone and to a control group. In other words, do metacogni-
tive strategies improve transfer at two levels, from trained to
untrained words and from spelling to reading?
The current intervention was designed in accordance with
the unique characteristics of the Hebrew language. Hebrew is
a Semitic language, written from right to left. It is also a
4 Journal of Learning Disabilities 
transparent language, in which the grapheme-to-phoneme
correspondence is highly consistent and symmetrical. As
such, it allows a unique opportunity to examine the effects of
phonological transparency on spelling. Because the phoneme
in Hebrew is a reliable unit on which to focus (Ziegler &
Goswami, 2005), mapping letters and sounds is an ability
that is mastered earlier compared to children who acquire
deep orthographies (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003).
Method
Participants
The participants included 67 Israeli monolingual Hebrew-
speaking kindergartners (53 boys, 14 girls) aged 5.1 to 6.9
years (M = 5.8). The children were recruited from six urban
kindergartens for children with SLI in the greater Tel Aviv
area, from a high socioeconomic status background. All
parents signed an informed consent prior to the interven-
tion, and all methods and procedures were approved by the
Institutional Review Board of Bar-Ilan University and the
Israeli Ministry of Education. The participants were ran-
domly assigned to one of the three groups: (a) ML group (n
= 25; 21 boys, 4 girls; aged 5.11–6.5 years, M = 5.6), (b)
MCML group (n = 25; 18 boys, 7 girls; aged 5.11–6.9 years,
M = 6.0), or (c) control group (n = 17; 14 boys, 3 girls; aged
5.11–6.8 years, M = 5.9). It is important to mention that the
original sample included 75 children, but 8 (3 from the ML
group, 3 from the MCML group, and 2 from the control
group) were excluded because they did not attend sessions
regularly.
All children had been previously diagnosed with SLI by
a speech therapist and a psychologist appointed by the
Ministry of Education. Based on these evaluations, a place-
ment committee (composed of a psychologist, a speech
therapist diagnostician, a kindergarten teacher, and the
Ministry of Education regional supervisor) assigned them
to the SLI preschool program.
None of the children had any hearing impairment, atten-
tion-deficit disorder, or other disability, as reported by the
teacher and the kindergarten psychologist. None of the chil-
dren knew how to read—as verified by the kindergarten
teacher and the researchers. All children had normal non-
verbal intelligence as assessed by the Block Design subtest
of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence
(WPPSI; Wechsler, 1989). The groups did not differ signifi-
cantly in this test (MCML: M = 9.9, SD = 1.6; ML: M = 9.3,
SD = 1.7; control: M = 9.8, SD = 1.9; p = .39). The chil-
dren’s verbal intelligence as assessed by the WPPSI
Vocabulary subtest was low, and is compatible with their
SLI diagnosis. The groups did not differ significantly in this
test (MCML: M = 5.3, SD = 2.8; ML: M = 5.1, SD = 2.4;
control: M = 5.1, SD = 2.4; p = .94). It is important to note
that the reported WPPSI scores were scaled scores.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
Intervention
For all three groups, the 8-week intervention program was
composed of two 25-min group instruction sessions per
week. In each session, the children learned 3 words con-
secutively, thereby totaling 48 words (3 words × 16 ses-
sions). Each word was only taught once, but the phonological
structure of the words was taught multiple times. Word
complexity varied over the course of the practice (see
Appendix A). All three groups had papers, pencils, crayons,
and erasers on the table. Members of all groups were also
provided with a plastic ruler that contained the alphabet and
a picture of an item starting with each letter. To verify that
the children understood the meaning of the word, prior to
the instruction the researcher showed a picture of the object
the children were asked to spell and later read (e.g., gader /
“fence”), and the children were asked, “What is shown on
the card?” None of the groups saw a written copy of any of
the words spelled out prior to the spelling instruction.
Both experimental groups (ML and MCML). Instruction in
both experimental groups focused on four metalinguistic
tasks reflecting phonological segmentation, letter knowl-
edge, and grapheme–phoneme correspondence. At the
beginning of each lesson, the researcher introduced the let-
ters of the day using previously made letter cards and named
them with the children, referring to the sound of each letter
(e.g., “The letter reish makes the sound r”).
Phoneme segmentation. The researcher introduced the
word orally, and the children were taught to orally break
it into subsyllabic units. For example, the children were
taught to break the word gader into three phonemic units:
ga, de, and r.
Applying letter knowledge/oral grapheme–phoneme corre-
spondence.  The researcher and the children orally matched
the sounds in the word to the letters that represent these
sounds, for example, for the word gader: ga—the letter
gimel, de—the letter dalet, and r—the letter reish.
Word spelling.  The children were asked to spell the word
twice in their notebooks.
Word reading. The children were asked to read what
they wrote aloud.
The MCML group only. Instruction in this group included
metacognitive strategies such as goal definition, planning,
process monitoring during performance, and product eval-
uation after performance in addition to phonological seg-
mentation, letter knowledge, and grapheme–phoneme
correspondence. During each session and for every word,
the researcher modeled the process of word spelling by using
Schiff et al. 5
signs to signal the stages of spelling practice and by asking
guiding questions using the following four strategies:
Goal definition.  The researcher first hung the “Target” sign
(a sign with an illustration of a target) on the marker board to
prepare the children for the writing task. While hanging the
sign, the researcher said, “Look, here’s our target sign,” and
announced the objective of the task: word spelling. When
presenting the next word, the researcher asked the children
whether they remembered the meaning of the sign. From
spelling the third word and on, the researcher asked, “Chil-
dren, what sign should we put up now?”
Planning.  Before spelling the word, the researcher hung
the “Planning” sign (a sign with an illustration of stairs) on
the marker board and said, “Look, here’s our planning sign,”
adding that before writing a word we need to listen to the
word, break it down into sounds, and match a letter to each
sound. When presenting the next word, the researcher asked
the children whether they remembered the meaning of the
sign. From spelling the third word and on, the researcher
asked, “Children, what sign should we put up now?”
Process monitoring. Before spelling the word, the
researcher hung the process monitoring sign (an illustration
of stairs with checkboxes). With the researcher’s guidance,
the children verbalized the stages (phoneme segmentation,
applying letter knowledge/oral grapheme–phoneme corre-
spondence, and word spelling) that needed to be completed
while applying them to each assigned word. After each
stage was completed, the researcher and the children veri-
fied that it was carried out properly (e.g., “Did we listen to
the word?” “Did we break the word down correctly?” “Did
we match a letter to each sound correctly?”). The researcher
then provided each group member with the word written on
a 5 × 5 card and wrote the word on the marker board. With
subsequent words, the researcher elicited the meaning of
the sign to be used from the children.
Product evaluation. To encourage children to monitor
their productions, the researcher hung the “Evaluation” sign
(an illustration of a magnifying glass) on the marker board.
The children read the word out loud to verify that each
sound was represented by a letter. Again, the researcher
gradually elicited the sign to be used from the learners.
Control group.  Using the same picture cards, work with this
group revolved around discussing the words’ meanings in
context and drawing illustrations of them, with no explicit
instruction in the words’ letters, letter sounds, or spelling.
For example, the researcher asked the participants, “What
does gader (‘fence’) mean?” This question was accompa-
nied by additional questions to stimulate children’s brain-
storming regarding the use and function of the word (e.g.,
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
“Where do we have fences?” “Why do we need fences?”
“Who has a fence in their house?”). At the end of the discus-
sion, the children were asked to draw and color a fence on a
piece of paper.
Fidelity of Implementation
To ensure fidelity of implementation, three weekly session
observations per instructor were conducted by the principal
researcher to monitor teaching behavior, totaling 72
observed sessions. The teachers were found to be able to
effectively implement strategies that were specified in the
intervention program and the training workshops into the
classes. Observations were used not only to verify the
degree of fidelity, but also to identify areas where imple-
mentation is somewhat problematic and where additional
training and support may be needed. Therefore, information
obtained from observations was used as a basis for the
weekly meeting in which the instructors participated, where
they shared experience and received support and consulta-
tion from the principal researcher.
Pretest/Posttest Assessment Tasks
The tasks administered at pretest and posttest included two
letter naming and sounding tasks, three word spelling tasks,
and three word reading tasks. Interviews were conducted
immediately after completion of each different spelling and
reading task.
Letter naming and sounding
Letter naming task.  The task included 27 letter cards (22
regular and 5 final consonants) and 5 pictures of objects in
random order, arranged in a pile. The children were asked to
name the presented letter or picture. Responses to the first 3
letters received corrective feedback. The children received
1 point for each correct answer, yielding a possible score
range of 0 to 27. Cronbach’s alpha on both the pretest and
posttest was .93.
Letter sounding task.  Using the same 27 letter cards, the
children were asked to say which sound each letter pro-
duces. As an initial demonstration, each child was given an
example of a letter taken from his/her name. Responses to
the first 3 letters received corrective feedback. The children
received 1 point for each correct answer, yielding a possible
score range of 0 to 27. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .96.
Spelling tasks.  The words for these three tasks are presented
in Appendix B. It should be noted that in line with the par-
ticipants’ weak baseline spelling skills, the children received
the untrained advanced-word tasks only at the posttest
stage, to avoid a floor effect (failure) on these tasks at pre-
test. The rationale for testing advanced words was to assess
6 Journal of Learning Disabilities 
the children’s ability to transfer learned spelling skills to
spelling unfamiliar new words, a higher order skill. The
easy-word spelling task was administered at both stages and
included only one-syllable easy words.
Pre- and post-easy-word (one-syllable) spelling task. The
children were asked to write 8 different words uttered by
the researcher, for example, bat (“girl”). All the words had
a CVC phonological pattern. The children received 1 point
for every correct letter, yielding a possible score range of 0
to 20. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .91.
Trained-word spelling task. The children were asked to
write 8 of the 48 words taught during the intervention. The
words were presented in an increasingly difficult sequence
of phonological structures: CVC, CVCV, CVCVC, CVCCV,
and CVCCVC. Scoring was calculated as for the pre- and
post-easy-word spelling task, 1 point for each correct letter,
yielding a possible score range of 0 to 27. Cronbach’s alpha
reliability was .91.
Untrained advanced (two-syllable) word spelling task. The
children were asked to write 8 new words with a phonological
structure similar to the trained words, CVC, CVCV, CVCVC,
CVCCV, and CVCCVC. Scoring was calculated as for the
pre- and post-easy-word spelling task, yielding a possible
score range of 0 to 29. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .90.
Reading tasks.  The words for these three tasks are presented in
Appendix C. As in the spelling tasks, in line with the partici-
pants’ weak baseline reading skills, the children received the
untrained advanced (two syllables) word reading task only at
the posttest stage, to avoid a floor effect (failure) on these
tasks at pretest. The rationale for testing advanced words was
to assess the children’s ability to transfer learned spelling
skills to reading unfamiliar new words, a higher order skill.
The word recognition task was administered at both stages.
Word recognition task.  Based on Levin, Shatil-Carmon,
and Asif-Rave’s (2006) early reading test, this word-picture
matching task comprised 16 pairs of words identified as
high-frequency words used by Israeli kindergarteners. For
each of the 16 pairs, the children were (a) presented with
two illustrations (10 × 7 cm) and two words (printed in 5
× 5 cm font on a card), (b) asked to name each picture (to
verify recognition), and (c) asked to match each picture
with the correct word using guiding questions for one of the
words in the pair (e.g., “Where is kelev written?” selected
randomly). The children received 1 point for each correct
match, yielding a possible score range of 0 to 16. Cron-
bach’s alpha reliability was .80.
Trained-word reading task. The children were asked to
read 10 of the 48 trained words aloud, from words printed
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
in 5 × 5 cm font on cards. The words were presented in
increasing difficulty: CVC, CVCV, CVCVC, and CVC-
CVC. The children received 1 point for each correct read-
ing, yielding a possible score range of 0 to 10. Cronbach’s
alpha reliability was .80.
Untrained-word reading task.  The children were asked to
read 10 new, unfamiliar words aloud, from words printed
in 5 × 5 cm font on cards. The words were presented in
increasing difficulty: CVC, CVCV, CVCVC, CVCCVC.
The children received 1 point for each correct reading,
yielding a possible score range of 0 to 10. Cronbach’s alpha
reliability was .96.
Interviews.  Immediately after completing each of the three
spelling assessments and each of the three reading assess-
ments at the pre- and posttest stages, the children were
asked the following question about the knowledge they
utilized while performing the tasks: “How did you know
how to spell/read the word?” Interview data were first
audiotaped and were later transcribed by a research assis-
tant. They were carefully read by three special education
professors from the Early Childhood Education Program
at Bar-Ilan University who served as raters. Next, each
rater proposed a coding system of metalinguistic themes
to fit the data, and these themes were discussed until
agreement was reached. Each rater then independently
verified the coding system for the same set of 25 responses
(37% of the sample), to test for interrater reliability, yield-
ing a Cohen’s kappa of .92. When raters disagreed, discus-
sion was held until agreement was reached. Four final
types of metalinguistic knowledge were devised for cod-
ing interview responses: specific alphabetical knowledge
along with grapheme–phonemic matching (e.g., “gamad
starts with ga”), scored 3 points; general alphabetical
knowledge (e.g., “the letters helped me read”), scored 2
points; semantic knowledge (e.g., “ir [‘town’] is a big
place, so I chose the longer word”), scored 1 point; and
nonlinguistic knowledge (e.g., “my teacher” or “my
mother”) or an “I don’t know” response scored 0 points.
Thus, interview responses following the spelling/reading
tests yielded a possible total score range of 0 to 24 points
(6 tests × maximum of 4 points).
Procedure
The 8-week intervention program was conducted from
January to March 2011. During the intervention, all groups
received the same standard compulsory literacy instruction
program required by the Israeli Ministry of Education. This
program provides all kindergartners with the language skills
considered as the foundation for later literacy skills.
Three graduate students from the Learning Disabilities
MA Program at Bar-Ilan University underwent group
Schiff et al. 7
Table 1.  Percentages of Correct Responses for Letter Names and Letter Sounds by Study Group.
  MCML
Task Pretest Posttest
Letter names M (SD) 61.33 (23.23) 86.96 (7.86)
Letter sounds M (SD) 7.55 (9.59) 60.59 (28.54)
training for carrying out the intervention. These three
researchers received a clear lesson plan that included specific
directions for each session and group. To neutralize the pos-
sible effect of the three researcher instructors’ teaching abili-
ties and professional level, the participants in each
kindergarten were divided into the three groups, thus eigh-
teen sections. Children were randomly assigned within class-
room, in a way that each classroom included children in each
experimental group, and the instructor provide instruction in
all three experimental conditions in to avoid confound of
treatment with instructor. Instruction was delivered to all sec-
tion members at the same time, with three to four children in
each group. The groups remained stable along the interven-
tion. No significant differences emerged between the three
sections of each group. Further analyses therefore regarded
them as one group. Instruction sessions were held in a private
room next to the kindergarten’s main classroom.
Pretesting took place up to 7 days prior to the interven-
tion, and posttesting was carried out within 7 days after
completion of the intervention. All children were tested
individually at both intervals simultaneously in all six kin-
dergartens. Testing and scoring were executed by an assess-
ment team, which included six MA graduate students from
the Bar-Ilan University Learning Disabilities Program who
were not the three instructors, and who were trained prior to
the study. Scoring was blind. The testers did not know the
participants’ group affiliation.
Results
Letter Naming and Letter Sounds
Table 1 presents percentages of correct responses for letter
names and letter sounds. Two one-way ANOVAs on pretest
scores for letter naming and letter sounds by group (MCML,
MC, control) revealed a significant group effect for letter
sounds, F(2, 64) = 4.13, p = .02, ηp2 = .11, and not for letter
names (F < 1). Multiple comparisons with Bonferroni cor-
rection for significance level indicated that the ML group
had higher scores on letter sounds than the control group
(p < .05). A one-way ANCOVA on percentages of posttest
correct responses for letter naming by group (MCML, MC,
control) with pretest scores serving as covariates revealed a
significant group effect, F(2, 63) = 9.88, p < .001, ηp2 = .24.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
Group
ML Control
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
54.22 (32.12) 81.77 (16.45) 54.90 (25.33) 65.14 (28.02)
18.37 (30.09) 37.48 (30.00) 1.52 (3.71) 6.75 (5.27)
Multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction for sig-
nificance level indicated that the MCML and the ML groups
did not differ on posttest scores and both scored higher than
the control group (ps < .001).
An additional ANCOVA on percentages of posttest cor-
rect responses on letter sounds by group (MCML, MC, con-
trol) with pretest scores serving as covariates revealed a
significant group effect, F(2, 63) = 24.03, p < .001, ηp2 =
.43. Multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction for
significance level indicated that the MCML group scored
higher than the ML group (p < .001), which in turn scored
higher than the control group (p = . 019).
Word Spelling Assessments
One-syllable word spelling task.  Table 2 presents percentages
of correct responses for the one-syllable word spelling task.
One-way ANOVA on pretest scores for one-syllable word
spelling task by group (MCML, MC, control) revealed a
nonsignificant group effect (F < 1). A one-way ANCOVA
on percentages of posttest correct responses for the one-
syllable word spelling task by group (MCML, MC, control)
with pretest scores serving as covariates revealed a signifi-
cant group effect, F(2, 63) = 116.8, p < .001, ηp2 = .79.
Multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction for sig-
nificance level indicated that the MCML group scored
higher than the ML group, which in turn scored higher than
the control group (ps < .001).
Trained and untrained word spelling task.  Table 3 presents per-
centages of overall correct responses for trained and untrained
word spelling task following the intervention. Two one-way
ANCOVAs were conducted separately for percentages of
correct responses for trained and untrained words, with pre-
test scores on the one-syllable word spelling task serving as
covariates. For both types of words, the group effect was sig-
nificant. Bonferroni tests indicated that for both word types,
the MCML group performed better than the ML group, which
in turn performed better than the control group (ps < .001)
Self-reported metalinguistic spelling knowledge. Table 4 pres-
ents descriptive statistics for each type of knowledge about
spelling performance, based on the coding of the children’s
interview data. Four one-way ANOVAs on pretest scores for
8 Journal of Learning Disabilities 

Table 2.  Percentages of Correct Responses for One-Syllable Word Spelling Task by Study Group.

Group

  MCML ML Control

  Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

M (SD) 3.00 (5.45) 80.00 (19.09) 2.50 (6.25) 30.50 (19.79) 0.73 (3.03) 3.67 (8.57)

Table 3.  Percentages of Overall Correct Responses for Trained and Untrained Word Spelling Task Following the Intervention by
Study Group.

Group  

  MCML ML Control F(2, 63), p, η2

Trained words M (SD) 80.00 (16.13) 26.00 (21.32) 0.73 (3.03) 136.28, <.001, .81
Untrained words M (SD) 80.50 (18.07) 27.00 (23.84) 1.47 (4.15) 101.65, <.001, .76

Table 4.  Percentages of Coded Metalinguistic Themes for Self-Reported Spelling Knowledge (Interview Data) by Study Group.

Group  

  MCML ML Control

Theme Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest F(2, 63), p, η2

Specific alphabetic M (SD) 6.50 (13.31) 81.83 (17.54) 5.75 (14.53) 1.00 (1.82) 4.04 (8.25) 3.43 (10.17) 380.18, <.001, .92
knowledge +
grapheme–
phonemic
matching
General alphabetic M (SD) 10.25 (17.75) 16.41 (16.94) 22.00 (24.61) 25.76 (34.50) 12.86 (23.33) 9.68 (15.32) 1.35, .27, .04
knowledge
Semantic M (SD) 16.25 (20.80) 0.16 (0.57) 11.50 (14.84) 1.58 (4.63) 13.60 (20.75) 2.81 (6.82) 2.12, .12, .07
knowledge
Nonlinguistic M (SD) 67.00 (30.69) 1.58 (2.42) 60.75 (34.58) 71.65 (37.06) 69.48 (35.75) 84.06 (20.94) 90, <.001, .74
response/I don’t
know

each type of knowledge about spelling performance by Word Reading Assessments

group (MCML, MC, control) revealed a nonsignificant
group effect for all types of knowledge (Fs < 1.91, ps > .15).
Four one-way ANCOVAs were conducted separately on
posttest scores for each type of self-reported metalinguistic
spelling knowledge by group (MCML, ML, control), with
pretest scores serving as covariates. As indicated in Table 4,
group effect was significant only for specific alphabetic
knowledge and nonlinguistic/don’t know responses. Bonfer-
roni tests revealed that for specific alphabetic knowledge,
the MCML group performed significantly better than the
ML and control groups (ps < .001), which did not differ sig-
nificantly. For nonlinguistic/don’t know responses, the
MCML group had lower scores than the ML and control
groups (ps < .001), which did not differ significantly.
Word recognition task.  Table 5 presents descriptive statis-
tics for correct responses on the picture–word matching
task. A one-way ANOVA on pretest scores by group
(MCML, MC, control) revealed a nonsignificant group
effect (F < 1). A one-way ANCOVA on percentages of
posttest correct responses for the picture–word matching
task by group (MCML, MC, control) with pretest scores
serving as covariates revealed a significant group effect,
F(2, 63) = 51.91, p < .001, ηp2 = .62. Multiple compari-
sons with Bonferroni correction for significance level
indicated that the MCML group scored higher than the
ML group, which in turn scored higher than the control
group (ps < .001).

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015

Schiff et al. 9

Table 5.  Percentages of Correct Responses on the Picture–Word Matching Task by Study Group.

Group

  MCML ML Control

  Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

M (SD) 29.50 (24.83) 94.00 (10.74) 32.50 (17.11) 67.75 (15.38) 27.94 (23.50) 46.32 (19.77)

Table 6.  Percentages of Overall Correct Responses for Trained and Untrained Word Reading Task Following the Intervention by
Study Group.

Group  

  MCML ML Control F(2, 63), p, η2

Trained words M (SD) 64.00 (28.28) 12.40 (29.19) 1.18 (4.85) 46.77, <.001, .60
Untrained words M (SD) 52.85 (26.88) 8.86 (23.44) 1.26 (5.20) 45.24, <.001, .59

Table 7.  Percentages of Coded Metalinguistic Themes for Self-Reported Reading Knowledge (Interview Data) by Study Group.

MCML ML Control  

Theme Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest F(2, 63), p, η2

Specific alphabetic M (SD) 0.87 (1.91) 77.37 (16.49) 4.00 (8.39) 8.12 (11.08) 0.36 (1.03) 1.65 (3.51) 260.07, <.001, .89
knowledge
General alphabetic M (SD) 9.50 (13.11) 18.37 (13.35) 14.62 (15.16) 26.12 (25.67) 6.80 (16.05) 9.74 (20.45) 2.51, .09, .07
knowledge
Semantic M (SD) 19.50 (24.85) 3.25 (3.77) 11.50 (15.97) 4.37 (9.92) 11.76 (14.84) 6.80 (12.36) F<1
knowledge
Nonlinguistic M (SD) 70.12 (27.28) 1.00 (1.73) 69.87 (27.87) 61.37 (37.07) 81.06 (20.97) 81.80 (30.36) 50.33, <.001, .62
response/don’t
know

Trained and untrained word reading task. Table 6 presents
descriptive statistics for correct responses for trained and
untrained words reading task following the intervention.
Two one-way ANCOVAs were conducted separately for
percentages of correct responses for trained and untrained
words, with pretest scores on word recognition serving as
covariates. As indicated in Table 6, for both types of words,
the group effect was significant. Bonferroni tests indicated
that for both types of words, the MCML group performed
significantly better than the ML and control groups (ps <
.001), which did not differ significantly.
Self-reported metalinguistic reading knowledge.  Table 7 pres-
ents descriptive statistics for each type of knowledge about
reading performance, based on the coding of the children’s
interview data. Four one-way ANOVAs on pretest scores
for each type of knowledge about reading performance by
group (MCML, MC, control) revealed a nonsignificant
group effect for all types of knowledge (Fs < 3.14, ps > .05).
Four one-way ANCOVAs were conducted separately on
posttest scores for each type of self-reported metalinguistic
reading knowledge by group (MCML, ML, control), with
pretest scores serving as covariates. Group effect was sig-
nificant only for specific alphabetic knowledge and nonlin-
guistic/don’t know responses. Bonferroni tests revealed that
for specific alphabetic knowledge, the MCML group per-
formed significantly better than the ML and control groups
(ps < .001), which did not differ significantly. For nonlin-
guistic/don’t know responses, the MCML group had lower
scores than the ML group, which in turn had lower scores
than the control group (ps < .001).
Discussion
The aim of this intervention study was to elucidate the contri-
bution of metacognitive and metalinguistic skills to the spell-
ing abilities of children with SLI compared to the effectiveness
of metalinguistic teaching alone. The current findings, which
demonstrate significant gains from pretest to posttest of kin-
dergartners’ letter naming, letter sounding, spelling, and
reading skills in the ML group, substantiate previous research
(Leppänen, Niemi, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2006; Lervåg &

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015

10 Journal of Learning Disabilities 
Hulme, 2010) in which strong relations were found between
spelling and metalinguistic awareness. The present outcomes
lend further support to the notion that working on spelling
while emphasizing the three major aspects of metalinguistic
training—phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and
letter–sound matching—contributes to spelling abilities and
results in transfer to reading skills (Ehri, 1986; Gillon, 2002;
Kim, 2010; Ritchey & Speece, 2006).
Furthermore, the present findings pinpointed the substan-
tial added benefit of the MCML condition over the ML-only
condition, as reflected in the MCML group’s better spelling
accuracy both on trained and on untrained words. It is impor-
tant that these findings suggest that applying metacognitive
strategies while practicing spelling provides a foundation for
spelling development for children with SLI. Specifically, the
metacognitive strategies seemed to help young children in
the MCML group to internalize spelling principles and pro-
cesses better than their peers in the ML group. In other
words, although children with SLI often do not indepen-
dently develop metacognitive strategies, and are frequently
not aware of the internal processes that may assist them in
overcoming linguistic challenges, these children can indeed
improve their spelling and reading abilities if they receive
direct instruction on metacognitive strategies (Graham &
Harris, 2003). Focusing on metacognitive strategies while
practicing spelling helps children with SLI grasp the behind-
the-scenes thinking required for good performance on spell-
ing and reading assignments.
Another benefit of the significant relation between meta-
linguistic awareness and metacognitive strategies is for word
reading. The current outcomes with regard to reading skills,
whereby the MCML group revealed a significantly more
accurate level of reading on the trained-word reading test
compared to the ML group, demonstrated that exposure to
metacognitive strategies during spelling instruction enhanced
the reading abilities of children with SLI, thus resembling
prior findings for typically developing children (N. Ellis &
Cataldo, 1990; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Hence,
children in the MCML group seemed more able to shift from
the naming letters phase to the sounding letters phase com-
pared to their peers in the ML group. The group that focused
solely on metalinguistic awareness, demonstrated a lower rate
of grapheme–phoneme correspondence transfer. However,
their reading skills developed compared to the preword recog-
nition task (Kan & Windsor, 2010; Uhry & Shepherd, 1993).
It is important that the same trend emerged when the
children were tested on reading of untrained words, which
means that the basics of reading, which include grapheme–
phoneme matching, were acquired. During the intervention,
children with SLI who practiced the metacognitive strate-
gies alongside the metalinguistic awareness skills were able
to use the simple skill of linking graphemes to phonemes to
read words to which they had not been exposed during the
intervention. Integrating metacognitive strategies alongside
the metalinguistic awareness made these children in the
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
MCML group more aware of the connection between the
visual representation of language and the written form of
the word, helping them focus on the pronunciation of seen
words and ultimately leading them to read new words.
Thus, the current study not only indicates that usage of
metacognitive strategies during metalinguistic spelling
instruction helps children with SLI to more accurately spell
and read words they are taught, but also suggests that these
children can transfer their new knowledge to the spelling
and reading of unfamiliar, untrained words.
The interview data indicated that verbalization of the meta-
cognitive process helped children acquire the principle of
grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence. The current out-
comes from interviews about both spelling and reading tasks
revealed that, overall, only the MCML group showed increases
in specific alphabetic knowledge (6.50 responses at pretest to
81.83 at posttest), which demonstrated their understanding
that each sound must be represented by a letter. A recurring
reply that reflected specific alphabet knowledge was “When I
hear k, I write k,” suggesting that the grapheme–phoneme
connection was acquired. In addition, only the MCML group
revealed a reduction in nonlinguistic and “I don’t know”
responses (from 67.00 at pretest down to only 1.58 at post-
test). These gains in self-reported metalinguistic knowledge
are in contrast to the high percentage of partial alphabetic
knowledge, nonlinguistic, and “I don’t know” responses dem-
onstrated by the ML group and the control group.
The current findings highlight the unique value of the
MCML intervention program and substantiate the vital
importance of concurrently integrating two major compo-
nents into the design of literacy interventions for kindergart-
ners with SLI: explicit spelling instruction and metacognitive
strategies. First, inasmuch as spelling is one of the most dif-
ficult skills for children with varying learning disabilities
(Bos & Vaughn, 2006), early practice of spelling skills
appears to render a positive impact on the spelling ability of
kindergartners with SLI, especially in Hebrew, which is char-
acterized by phoneme–grapheme correspondence. Offering
spelling interventions early in kindergarten may reduce spell-
ing delays (Puranik & Lonigan, 2012). In addition, consider-
ing prior scientific evidence indicating that children with SLI
also experience delays in a broader range of cognitive diffi-
culties (Im-Bolter et al., 2006), the other component neces-
sary for effective spelling and reading acquisition is
metacognitive strategies, which help these young children
master the cognitive processes underlying word spelling by
defining and planning the course of action and monitoring
and evaluating the process as well as the product.
As seen above, metacognitive strategies can be seen as
comprising an effective supplemental component for meta-
linguistic spelling programs targeting children with SLI. The
current two-pronged intervention led to the best gains in both
spelling and reading, for both trained and untrained words as
well as children’s increased ability to reflect on their thinking
while practicing spelling and reading. Nonetheless, despite
Schiff et al. 11

the demonstrated effects of metacognitive instructional prac-
tice on the spelling of middle and upper elementary school
students and adults (Kreiner & Green, 2000; Pacheco &
Goodwin, 2013; Viise & Austin, 2005), we did not find sys-
tematic prior evidence on spelling interventions for kinder-
gartners with SLI. Improved spelling outcomes for these
older children emerged consistently when instructional pro-
grams included explicit teaching, substantial practice, and
immediate corrective feedback (Wanzek et al., 2006). The
current intervention integrated all these components but
extended these elements by designing a comprehensive
metacognitive program that integrated both metalinguistic
and learning awareness.
The present research has certain limitations that need to
be taken into account when considering the study and its
contributions. Although the intervention was carried out pro-
fessionally and systematically, data on fidelity of implemen-
tation would strengthen the results. This study points to the
need for further investigation of which specific MC strate-
gies (goal definition, product monitoring, etc.) are most ben-
eficial for children with SLI at the different phases of
spelling instruction and the need for pretest–posttest com-
parison of MC skills. Future studies would do well to follow
children’s literacy development at a subsequent phase of
testing during first grade, to examine the effectiveness of
applying metalinguistic and metacognitive strategies during
spelling and reading practice as children with SLI grow
older. Finally, future studies may include subtype divisions,
since not all children with SLI have difficulty in reading and
spelling.

Appendix A.  The 48 Words Trained During the Intervention.

Session Phonological Structure Phonetic Transcription / Orthographic Representation / Translation

1 3-letter CVCVC gader / GDR / “fence,” barad / BRD / “hail,” beged / BGD / “garment”
2 3-letter CVCVC gamad / GMD / “dwarf,” gamal / GML / “camel,” naxash / NXSH / “snake”
3 4-letter CVCCVC sandal / SNDL / “sandal,” sargel / SRGL / “ruler,” mazleg / MZLG / “fork”
4 4-letter CVCCVC masmer / MSMR / “nail,” parpar / PRPR / “butterfly,” masger / MSGR / “welder”
5 Two 3-letter CVCVC zemer / ZMR / “song,” xacer / XCR / “yard,” carcar / CRCR / “cricket”
One 4-letter CVCCVC
6 Two 3-letter CVCVC naxal / NXL / “stream,” namer / NMR / “tiger,” kalmar / KLMR / “pencil case”
One 4-letter CVCCVC
7 3-letter CVCV, with final vowel H shana / SNH / “year,” cama / CMH / “braid,” kala / KLH / “bride”
8 3-letter CVCV, with final vowel H xala / XLH / “challah,” gada / GDH / “riverbank,” xasa / XSH / “lettuce”
9 4-letter CVCCV, with final vowel H malka / MLKH / “queen,” xalma / XLMH / “dreamed” (female), kalba / KLBH /
“dog” (female)
10 4-letter CVCCV, with final vowel H kanta / KNTH / “bought” (female), gamba / GMBH / “pepper,” shatka / STKH /
“was silent”
11 3-letter CVC, with middle vowel Y shir / SYR / “song,” gil / GYL / “joy,” sir / SYR / “pot”
12 3–4-letter CVC, with middle vowel Y nir / NYR / “meadow,” pil / PYL / “elephant,” xacil / XCYL / “eggplant”
13 3-letter CVC, with middle vowel W kor / KWR / “coldness,” xod / XWD / “tip,” mashot / MSWT / “paddle”
14 3–4-letter CVC, with middle vowel W rok / RWK / “saliva,” raxok / RXWK / “far,” mot / MWT / “pole”
15 3-letter words with different vowels and mana / MNH / “portion,” gir / GYR / “chalk,” yom / YWM / “day”
vowel positions
16 4-letter words with two different vowels gina / GNH / “garden,” shoteh / SWTH / “drinks” (female), shelly / SHLY / “my”
per word in different positions

Appendix B.  Word Spelling Assessment Tasks.

Easy (One-Syllable) Word Spelling Trained-Word Spelling Untrained-Advanced (Two-Syllable)

(Pretest / Posttest) (Posttest Only) Word Spelling (Posttest Only)
1 bat / BT / “girl” gader / GDR / “fence” sapar / SPR / “hairdresser”
2 ner / NR / “candle” sandal / SNDL / “sandal” shaldag / SLDG / “kingfisher”
3 gir / GYR / “chalk” shir / SYR / “song” lama / LMH / “lama”
4 pil / PYL / “elephant” xacil / XCYL / “eggplant” shamra / SMRH / “kept” (female)
5 sod / SWD / “secret” kor / KWR / “cold” shana / SNH / “year”
6 kol / KWL / “voice” mashot / MSWT / “paddle” sagol / SGWL / “purple”
7 daf / DF / “page” sapa / SPH / “coach” macil / MCYL / “lifeguard”
8 dag / DG / “fish” gina / GNH / “garden” rina / RYNH / “dance”

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015

12 Journal of Learning Disabilities 

Appendix C.  Word Reading Assessment Tasks.

Trained-Word Reading Untrained-Word Reading

Word Recognition (Pretest / Posttest) (Posttest Only) (Posttest Only)
1 gamad / GMD / “dwarf” + naxash / NXSH / “snake” gader / GDR / “fence” bat / BT / “girl”
2 kelev / KLV / “dog” + geshem / GSHM / “rain” sandal / SNDL / “sandal” ner / NR / “candle”
3 masmer / MSMR / “nail” + mazleg / MZLG / “fork” shir / SYR / “song” xeder / XDR / “room”
4 safsal / SFSL / “bench” + marvad / MRVD / “carpet” tzemer / ZMR / “wool” ʕarnak / ARNK / “wallet”
5 shot / SOT / “whip” + shat / SAT / “float” xatsil / XZYIL / “eggplant” mavreg / MVRG / “screwdriver”
6 yod / YOD / “tenth letter of Hebrew alphabet” + yad / YAD / xod / XWD / “tip” til / TYL / “rocket”
“hand”
7 ʕof / ʕOF / “bird” + ʕaf / ʕAF / “fly” mashot / MSWT / “paddle” kol / KWL / “voice”
8 shor / SOR / “taurus” + shar / SAR / “sing” mana / MNA / “dish” shara / SRH / “sings”
9 riv / RIV / “fight” + rav / RAV / “rabbi” gina / GYNH / “garden” mita / MYTH / “bed”
10 ʕish / ʕISH / “man” + ʕesh / ʕSH / “fire” malka / MLKH / “queen” xita / XYTH / “wheat”
11 ʕir / ʕIR / “city” + ʕer / ʕR / “awake”  
12 til / TIL / “rocket” + tal / TL / “dew”  
13 dir / DIR / “pen” + dira / DIRA / “apartment”  
14 pil / PIL / “elephant” + pila / PILA / “female elephant”  
15 sus / SUS / “horse” + susa / SUSA / “female horse”  
16 yeled / YLD / “boy” + yalda / YLDA / “girl”  

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Al Otaiba, S. A., Puranik, C., Zilkowski, R., & Curran, T. (2009).
Effectiveness of early phonological awareness interventions
for students with speech or language impairments. Journal of
Special Education, 43, 107–128.
Alt, M., & Plante, E. (2006). Factors that influence lexical and
semantic fast mapping of young children with specific lan-
guage impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 49, 941–954.
Alves Martins, M., Albuquerque, A., Salvador, L., & Silva, C.
(2013). The impact of invented spelling on early spelling and
reading. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 215–237.
Aram, D., Abiri, S., & Elad, L. (2014). Predicting early spelling: The
contribution of children’s early literacy, self-regulation, private
speech during spelling, and parental spelling support. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 685–707.
Archibald, L. M., & Gathercole, S. E. (2007). Nonword repetition
in specific language impairment: More than a phonological
short-term memory deficit. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
14, 919–924.
Ashby, J. (2010). Phonology is fundamental in skilled reading:
Evidence from ERPs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17,
95–100.
Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learn-
ing: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Bishop, D. V. M. (1997). Uncommon understanding. Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2001). Genetic influences on language
impairment and literacy problems in children: Same or dif-
ferent? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42,
189–198.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2002). Motor immaturity and specific speech
and language impairment: Evidence for a common genetic
basis. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 114, 56–63.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2006). What causes specific language impair-
ment in children? Current Direction in Psychological Science,
15, 217–221.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Clarkson, B. (2003). Written language as a
window into residual language deficits: A study of children
with persistent and residual speech and language impair-
ments. Cortex, 39, 215–237.
Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Strategies for teaching students
with learning and behavior problems. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The founda-
tions of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 751–774.
Caravolas, M., Vólin, J., & Hulme, C. (2005). Phoneme awareness
is a key component of alphabetic literacy skills in consistent
and inconsistent orthographies: Evidence from Czech and
English children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
92, 107–139.
Catts, H., Hogan, T., & Adolf, S. (2005). Developmental changes
in reading and reading disabilities. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi
(Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabili-
ties (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, K. N., Mills, P. E., & Kelley, D. (1994). Agreement of
assessment profiles used in cognitive referencing. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 25–31.

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015

Schiff et al. 13
Cordewener, K. A., Bosman, A. M., & Verhoeven, L. (2012).
Characteristics of early spelling of children with specific
language impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders,
45, 212–222.
Critten, S., Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Walter, K. (2014).
Inflectional and derivational morphological spelling abilities
of children with specific language impairment. Frontiers in
Psychology: Cognitive Science, 5, 948.
Deacon, S. H., Cleave, P. L., Baylis, J., Fraser, J., Ingram, E., &
Perlmutter, S. (2014). The representation of roots in the spell-
ing of children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 47, 13–21.
Diependaele, K., Ziegler, J., & Grainger, J. (2010). Fast phonol-
ogy and the bi-modal interactive activation model. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 764–778.
Dignath, C., Büttner, G., & Langfeldt, H. (2008). How can pri-
mary school students acquire self-regulated learning most
efficiently? A meta-analysis on interventions that aim at
fostering self-regulation. Educational Research Review, 3,
101–129.
Ehri, L. C. (1986). Sources of difficulty in learning to spell and
read. Advances in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
7, 121–195.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and
issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. (1987). Does learning to spell help begin-
ners learn to read words? Reading Research Quarterly, 22,
47–65.
Ellis, A., Denton, D., & Bond, J. (2014). An analysis of research
on metacognitive teaching strategies. Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4015–4024.
Ellis, N., & Cataldo, S. (1990). The role of spelling in learning to
read. Language and Education, 4, 1–28.
Fee, E. J. (1995). The phonological system of a specifically lan-
guage-impaired population. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics,
9, 189–205.
Finneran, D. A., Francis, A. L., & Leonard, L. B. (2009). Sustained
attention in children with specific language impairment (SLI).
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52,
915–929.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A
new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American
Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Gathercole, S. E., Briscoe, J., Thorn, A., & Tiffany, C. (2008).
Deficits in verbal long-term memory and learning in children
with poor phonological short-term memory skills. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 474–490.
Gillon, G. T. (2002). Follow-up study investigating the benefits
of phonological awareness intervention for children with spo-
ken language impairment. International Journal of Language
Communication Disorders, 37, 381–400.
Goodwin, A. P., Gilbert, J. K., & Cho, S. (2013). Morphological
contributions to adolescent word reading: An item response
approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 39–60.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2003). Students with learning disabili-
ties and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD
studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
Gray, S. (2003). Word learning by preschoolers with impairment:
What predicts success? Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 46, 56–67.
Gray, S. (2004). Word learning by preschoolers with specific lan-
guage impairment: Predictors and poor learners. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1117–1132.
Henry, L. A., Messer, D. J., & Nash, G. (2011). Executive func-
tioning in children with specific language impairment.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 37–45.
Im-Bolter, N., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2006). Processing
limitations in children with specific language impairment:
The role of executive function. Child Development, 77, 1822–
1841.
Jacobs, G. M. (2004). A classroom investigation of the growth
of metacognitive awareness in kindergarten children through
the writing process. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32,
17–23.
Jones, C. D., Clark, S. R., & Reutzel, D. R. (2012). Enhancing
alphabet knowledge instruction: Research implications and
practical strategies for early childhood educators. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 41, 81–89.
Kan, P. F., & Windsor, J. (2010). Word learning in children with
primary language impairment: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 739–756.
Kim, Y.-S. (2010). Componential skills of spelling in Korean.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 137–158.
Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, reg-
ulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22,
296–298.
Krassowski, E., & Plante, E. (1997). IQ variability in children with
SLI: Implications for use of cognitive referencing in deter-
mining SLI. Journal of Communication Disorders, 30, 1–9.
Kreiner, D. S., & Green, A. G. (2000). Feeling of knowing judg-
ments and strategy selection in spelling. Perceptual & Motor
Skills, 90, 775–786.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review (Pearson
research reports). Retrieved from http://images.pearsonas-
sessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.
pdf
Larkin, R. F., Williams, G. J., & Blaggan, S. (2013). Delay or
deficit? Spelling processes in children with specific language
impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46, 401–
412.
Laws, G., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). A comparison of lan-
guage abilities in adolescents with Down syndrome and chil-
dren with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language and Hearing Research, 46, 1324–1339.
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language disorders.
London, UK: MIT Press.
Leppänen, U., Niemi, P., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2006).
Development of reading and spelling Finnish from pre-
school to grade 1 and grade 2. Scientific Studies of Reading,
10, 3–30.
Lervåg, A., & Hulme, C. (2010). Predicting the growth of early
spelling skills: Are there heterogeneous developmental trajec-
tories? Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 485–513.
Levin, I., & Aram, D. (2013). Promoting early literacy via practic-
ing invented spelling: A comparison of different mediation
routines. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 1–16.
14 Journal of Learning Disabilities 
Levin, I., Shatil-Carmon, S., & Asif-Rave, O. (2006). Learning
of letter names and sounds and their contribution to word
recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93,
139–165.
Lidstone, J. S. M., Meins, E., & Fernyhough, C. (2012). Verbal
mediation of cognition in children with specific language
impairment. Developmental Psychopathology, 24, 651–660.
Macchi, L., Schelstraete, M.-A., & Casalis, S. (2014). Word and
pseudoword reading in children with specific speech and lan-
guage impairment. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
35, 3313–3325.
Mackie, C., & Dockrell, J. E. (2004). The nature of written lan-
guage deficits in children with SLI. Journal of Speech,
Language, Hearing Research, 47, 1469–1483.
Marini, A., Gentili, C., Molteni, M., & Fabbro, F. (2014).
Differential verbal working memory effects on linguistic
production in children with specific language impairment.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3534–3542.
Marshall, C. R., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2007). The impact of
phonological complexity on past tense inflection in chil-
dren with grammatical-SLI. Advances in Speech Language
Pathology, 9, 191–203.
Martins, M., & Silva, C. (2006). The impact of invented spell-
ing on phonemic awareness. Learning and Instruction, 16,
41–56.
Mauer, D., & Kamhi, A. (1996). Visual and phonetic influences on
the learning of novel phoneme–grapheme correspondences.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 259–271.
Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve math-
ematical problem solving for students with learning disabili-
ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 37–44.
Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Middle school students’
mathematical problem solving: An analysis of think-aloud
protocols. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 16, 19–32.
Montgomery, J. W. (2000). Verbal working memory and sentence
comprehension in children with specific language impair-
ment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
43, 293–308.
Montgomery, J. W., & Windsor, J. (2007). Examining the lan-
guage performances of children with and without specific
language impairment: Contributions of phonological short-
term memory and speed of processing. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 778–797.
Nathan, L., Stackhouse, J., Goulandris, N., & Snowling, M. (2004).
The development of early literacy skills among children with
speech difficulties: A test of the “critical age hypothesis.”
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47,
377–391.
Naucler, K. (2004). Spelling development in Swedish children with
and without language impairment. Journal of Multilingual
Communication Disorders, 2, 207–215.
Notari, A. R., Cole, K. N., & Mills, P. E. (1992). Cognitive ref-
erencing: The (non)relationship between theory and appli-
cation. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11,
22–38.
Oetting, J. B., & Hadley, P. (2009). Morphosyntax in child lan-
guage disorders. In R. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of
child language disorders (pp. 341–364). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
Olson, C. B. (1992). Thinking/writing: Fostering critical thinking
through writing. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Olson, D. R., & Astington, J. W. (1993). Thinking about thinking:
Learning how to take statements and hold beliefs. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 7–23.
Ouellette, G., & Sénéchal, M. (2007, July). Invented spelling: A
window into early literacy acquisition. Paper presented at the
14th annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Reading, Prague, Czech Republic.
Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting two and two
together: Middle school students’ morphological problem-
solving strategies for unknown words. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 56, 541–553.
Plaza, M., & Cohen, H. (2007). The contribution of phonological
awareness and visual attention in early reading and spelling.
Dyslexia, 13, 67–73.
Puranik, C., & Lonigan, C. (2012). Name-writing proficiency, not
length of name, is associated with preschool children’s emer-
gent literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27,
284–294.
Rice, M. (2004). Language growth of children with SLI and
unaffected children: Timing mechanisms and linguistic dis-
tinctions. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulaa, & C. Smith (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference
on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 28–49). Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Press.
Rieben, L., Ntamakiliro, L., Gonthier, B., & Fayol, M. (2005).
Effects of various early writing practices on reading and spell-
ing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 145–166.
Ritchey, K. D., & Speece, D. L. (2006). From letter names to word
reading: The nascent role of sublexical fluency. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31, 301–327.
Scharlach, T. (2008). START Comprehending: Students and
Teachers Actively Reading Text. Reading Teacher, 62, 20–31.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting
self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part
of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science
Education, 36, 111–139.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance
measures in spoken and written narrative and expository dis-
course of school-age children with language learning disabili-
ties. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
324–339.
Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2004). Computer-supported pho-
nological awareness intervention for kindergarten children
with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 229–239.
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. (2003). Foundation lit-
eracy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal
of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
Shatil, E., Share, D. L., & Levin, I. (2000). On the contribution of
kindergarten writing to grade 1 literacy: A longitudinal study
in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 1–25.
Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R. H., & Peters, M. L. (2006). Spelling
patterns in preadolescents with atypical language skills:
Phonological, morphological, and orthographic factors.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 93–123.
Simkin, Z., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2006). Evidence of reading
difficulty in subgroups of children with specific language
Schiff et al. 15
impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22,
315–331.
Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Stothard, S. E. (2000). Is
preschool language impairment a risk factor for dyslexia in
adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41,
587–600.
Thatcher, K. L. (2010). The development of phonological aware-
ness with specific language-impaired and typical children.
Psychology in the Schools, 47, 467–480.
Thordardottir, E., Chapman, R., & Wagner, L. (2002). Complex
sentence production by adolescents with down syndrome.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 163–183.
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988).
Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23, 134–158.
Tyler, A. A., Gillon, G., Macrae, T., & Johnson, R. L. (2011).
Direct and indirect effects of stimulating phoneme aware-
ness vs. other linguistic skills in preschoolers with co-occur-
ring speech and language impairments. Topics in Language
Disorders, 31, 128–144.
Uhry, J. K., & Shepherd, M. J. (1993). Segmentation and spelling
instruction as part of a first-grade reading program: Effects
on several measures of reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
28, 219–233.
van der Lely, H. K. J., & Battell, J. (2003). Wh-movement in chil-
dren with grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis.
In B. D. Joseph (Ed.), Language (pp. 153–181). Washington,
DC: Linguistic Society of America.
van der Lely, H. K. J., & Marshall, C. (2011). Grammatical spe-
cific language impairment: A window onto domain specific-
ity. In J. Guendouzi, F. Loncke, & M. J. Williams (Eds.),
The handbook of psycholinguistic and cognitive processes:
Perspectives in communication disorders (pp. 401–418). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
van der Lely, H. K. J., Rosen, S., & McClelland, A. (1998).
Evidence for a grammar-specific deficit in children. Current
Biology, 8, 1253–1258.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on September 11, 2015
van der Lely, H. K. J., & Stollwerk, L. (1997). Binding theory
and grammatical specific language impairment in children.
Cognition, 62, 245–290.
Vandewalle, E., Boets, B., Boons, T., Ghesquière, P., & Zink, I.
(2012). Oral language and narrative skills in children with
specific language impairment with and without literacy delay:
A three-year longitudinal study. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 33, 1857–1870.
Viise, N. M., & Austin, O. F. (2005). Can adult low-skilled liter-
acy learners assess and discuss their own spelling knowledge?
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 402–414.
Vugs, B., Hendriks, M., Cuperus, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2014).
Working memory performance and executive function behav-
iors in young children with SLI. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 35, 62–74.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and develop-
ment. In Mind and Society (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E. A., Edmonds, M.,
& Kim, A. (2006). A synthesis of spelling and reading inter-
ventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students
with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 528–543.
Wechsler, D. (1989). WPPSI-R manual: Wechsler Preschool
and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Revised. New York, NY:
Psychological Corporation.
Winsler, A. (2009). Still talking to ourselves after all these years:
A review of current research on private speech. In A. Winsler,
C. Fernyhough, & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech, execu-
tive functioning, and the development of verbal self-regula-
tion (pp. 3–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Winsler, A., Carlton, M. P., & Barry, M. J. (2000). Age-related
changes in preschool children’s systematic use of private speech
in a natural setting. Journal of Child Language, 27, 665–687.
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, devel-
opmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A
psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin,
131, 3–29.