TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

I

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HT

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

The Reading Teacher, 61(8), pp. 654–658 © 2008 International Reading AssociationDOI:10.1598/RT.61.8.7 ISSN: 0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online654

This article describes a technique called MyeSorts that helps children learn to read and spellin a socially motivated context. It is based on de-

velopmental spelling research and the word study ap-proach to teaching phonics and spelling (Bear,Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2008). For almostfour decades, teachers have taught beginning readersto examine the orthographic relationships amongwords by sorting them into categories based on soundand spelling patterns (Henderson, 1990; Stauffer, 1970).At present, word study routines include active manip-ulation of word cards to sort pictures and words into or-thographic categories (Bear et al., 2008). “eSorting” isan extension of these word study routines. It employsdigital tools, allowing children to author their own elec-tronic word sorts (see Figure 1) and then share theseeSorts with their classmates at the classroom comput-er center. In what follows, we outline the steps and ra-tionale for using digital extensions of word study; wealso describe a formative study that investigatedeSorting with a first-grade class in a mid-Atlantic, ur-ban school serving a low- to middle-income populationin the United States.

Developing Digital WordStudyOur interest in exploring digital extensions of wordstudy involved more than a desire to add the bells andwhistles of technology to a tried-and-true literacy prac-tice. We believed eSorting could be valuable for twotypes of readers in this classroom: (1) for students witha poor attitude toward reading, eSorts might promotea positive attitude toward literacy, and (2) for studentswho had already been taught spelling patterns butwere having trouble mastering them, eSorts provideda new context for additional reading and spellingpractice. The efficacy of using computerized wordsorts to improve decoding and spelling has alreadybeen demonstrated (Hanlon & Cantrell, 1999; Weber& Henderson, 1989), and free software is already avail-

able for using premade word sorts on the computer(websites listed in Bear et al., 2008). Therefore, we setout to create a context for word study that was morethan a prepared computer game. Our goal was to usetechnology to personalize learning for these two kindsof readers.

To attain these objectives, we explored a methodwe called My eSorts because students used their ownwords and stories as the basis for designing electronicword sorts. We hoped to create positive, motivating lit-eracy experiences during eSorting because several ofthese first graders already demonstrated a poor attitudetoward reading on the Elementary Reading AttitudeSurvey (ERAS; McKenna & Kear, 1990). For example,Katie’s (all student names are pseudonyms) ERASscore for recreational reading attitude was below thefirst percentile for first graders. Her attitude toward ac-ademic reading (34th percentile) was somewhat high-er. Nonetheless, we were concerned about her distastefor reading at this young age. Another student, Tevin,had a positive attitude toward literacy but was havingparticular difficulty spelling r-controlled vowel patternsdespite explicit instruction.

Knowing that technology-based instructional tech-niques often require reworking to get them right, wedecided to explore eSorting with a formative researchprocess. Simply put, a formative research design em-ploys an iterative, reflective process in which the re-searchers and participants collaborate to make changesto, and improve, the digital application under study(e.g., Reinking & Watkins, 2000). We were also awarethat converging research indicates that phonics andspelling should be taught explicitly and systematically(e.g., Mesmer & Griffith, 2006; National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development, 2000). Therefore, werelied on developmental spelling research to provide asystematic sequence for instruction (e.g., Henderson &Templeton, 1986; Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004; Read, 1971).The classroom teacher was a reading specialist whohad used word study for several years and understoodthe importance of systematic and explicit instruction.

My eSorts and Digital Extensions of Word StudyTricia A. Zucker, Marcia Invernizzi

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

H

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

INT

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

My eSorts and Digital Extensions of Word Study 655

She met daily with three flexible word study groups andused the following routine: Mondays—teacher intro-duces new sort to compare and contrast orthographicfeatures; Tuesdays—students repeat sort with partner;Wednesdays—they repeat sort and hunt for spelling pat-terns in connected texts; Thursdays—they repeat sortand “speed sort”; Fridays—they do word study gamesand spelling assessments and glue words in word studynotebook. The teacher assessed students’ progress intwo ways: (1) with brief 10-word spelling assessmentscalled spell checks that were used regularly to deter-mine if students mastered the spelling patterns studiedthat week and (2) with a detailed 25-word qualitativespelling inventory, the Developmental Spelling Analysis(DSA; Ganske, 1999), that was used every nine weeks tomonitor students’ spelling levels. eSorting provided arich extension to this word study instruction studentsreceived in differentiated groups.

Five-Day eSorting ProcessThe process of authoring My eSorts required five daysof one-on-one assistance with a tutor plus the regularword study routines described. The following stepssummarize how tutoring extended word study at thecomputer center:

Day 1: Student dictates digital experience story and tu-tor types. Tutor adds digital photograph(s) ofstudent.

Day 2: Tutor and student review previous word sortand create first draft of the student’s personal-ized eSort.

Day 3: They both finalize eSort by adding words fromword hunts in student’s experience story andother texts.

Day 4: They review and practice eSort until automatic.They personalize the eSort and experience sto-ry with clip art and other multimedia.

Day 5: They share digital experience story and My eSortat the Author’s Computer Chair (Labbo, 2004).Student invites friends to “play” their eSort andread their experience story during centers.

We trained one graduate and one undergraduateuniversity student to work with nine students for 15minutes each. Parents and classroom volunteerscould also serve as eSorting tutors (eSort templatesand tutor lesson plans available upon request from thefirst author).

Day 1: Digital Experience StoryBecause our chief aim was to design a word study ex-tension that was motivating, we believed that eSortingshould begin with a personal literacy event that waslikely to be meaningful (Stauffer, 1970). Therefore, Day1 started with the student dictating a story of his or herchoosing for the tutor to type. Much like the Digital

Figure 1Tevin’s eSort Comparing Short-o with r-Controlled o

Note. Photographs by Bree Booth.

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

I

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HT

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

656 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 8 May 2008

Language Experience Approach described by Labbo,Eakle, and Montero (2002), students’ experience sto-ries contained digital photography, clip art, sound, andother visual design features that the children selected(see Figure 2). We used Microsoft PowerPoint softwareto record experience stories because it is relatively easyto add multimedia and voice recordings of studentsreading their story. Students enjoyed dictating storiesabout getting sick on roller coasters at carnivals, goingto the hospital, and many other narratives. After dictat-ing an experience story on Day 1, the tutor took photo-graphs of the student to add to the experience storyand to the eSort template they would use the next day.

Day 2: Create the eSortDay 2’s lesson began by reviewing the student’s wordstudy notebook that contained all the paper word sortsthe student had accumulated in their regular wordstudy group. These word sorts contained up to fourcolumns of words that were labeled with a spelling-pattern header at the top of each column. First, the tu-tor asked the student to explain the spelling pattern foreach header, including the sound, pattern, and posi-tion. This type of deliberate interaction with a morecapable adult provides an ideal setting for internalizing

new concepts (Vygotsky, 1978), such as the terminolo-gy and patterns of English orthography. If necessary,the tutor clarified troublesome spelling patterns. Next,the tutor opened the digital eSorting template andtyped the headers in the eSort. We used MicrosoftPowerPoint software for our first eSorts; however, as theresearchers and teacher reflected on the study we feltthat using a more kid friendly publishing software,Inspiration 8, would improve eSorting. Text boxescould be manipulated more easily with Inspiration,and students could access various text box shapes andclip art galleries. Figure 3 shows Katie’s eSort that re-viewed short-u and long-u vowels as found in wordswith a consonant-vowel-consonant versus a consonant-vowel-consonant-silent-e pattern.

The eSort template contained a photo of the stu-dent from Day 1. Students often dictated a speech bub-ble near their picture to introduce the sort to theirfriends who would access it during literacy center time.Next, the students generated as many words as theycould from their lexicon that contained the spellingpatterns while the tutor typed. The process of creatingtheir own eSort required students to use more sophisti-cated reasoning and synthesis than if they had simplyrepeated a paper or computerized sort for review.

Figure 2Katie’s Digital Experience Story

Note. Photographs by Bree Booth.

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

H

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

INT

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

My eSorts and Digital Extensions of Word Study 657

Day 3: Add to the eSortDay 3’s task provided practice reading and spellingthese orthographic patterns using word hunts in con-nected texts. Therefore, the tutor and student startedby returning to the dictated experience story to see ifany of the student’s own words contained the spellingfeatures. On this day, Katie and her tutor returned toa story she had told on Day 1 about breaking her legand going to the hospital (Figure 2). As Katie scannedher story for short- and long-u patterns she found theword hurt, which did not match either pattern but didcontain the letter u. Although Katie had not beentaught r-controlled vowel patterns at this point, she ob-served that the r influenced the vowel. Accordingly,she called this “robber r” because the r robbed thevowel of its sound. Next, Katie and the tutor skimmedseveral texts at her independent reading level andadded words containing the spelling features. Eachchild had a book box filled with texts at their inde-pendent reading level. The eSort now containedwords from Katie’s lexicon, from her experience ofbreaking her leg, and from her own book box.

Day 3’s activities proved to be difficult for somechildren, like Tevin, who were having difficulty grasp-ing particular spelling patterns. Tevin was creating asort comparing short-o versus r-controlled vowels (seeFigure 1), but while doing a word hunt in his experi-ence story about a roller coaster he came across theword roller. He thought this long-o pattern fit his sort.

The tutor used questioning and modeling to helpTevin hear and see the difference between the vowelin roller and the vowels he was studying. When the tu-tor provided this one-on-one support and asked Tevinto articulate why this word did not match his sort, itappeared to improve his understanding of r-controlledvowels. On his next DSA test, Tevin went from 60% forthis spelling feature to 100% mastery. We cannot sug-gest that eSorting caused this improvement, but it ispossible that this instructional technique might im-prove spelling knowledge.

Day 4: Review and PersonalizeThe fourth day was a time for gaining automaticitiy inreading and spelling the featured patterns and foradding some digital flourishes to the student’s work byrepeating the eSort or using speed sorts. The tutorhelped add some embellishments to Katie’s eSort anda recording of Katie reading her experience story tothese files. Anything from clip art and digital photogra-phy to sound, music, voice recordings, and anima-tion were used to personalize these materials in waysthat the children found interesting.

Day 5: Share at Author’s Computer ChairThe fifth day was for sharing My eSorts and digital ex-perience stories at the Author’s Computer Chair (Labbo,

Figure 3Katie’s eSort Comparing Short-u, Long-u, and r-Controlled Vowels

Note. Photographs by Bree Booth.

For related lesson plans visit ReadWriteThink.org and click Lessons to find

� Word Sorts for Beginning and StrugglingReaders

� Sort, Hunt, Write: A Weekly Spelling Program� Getting the ig in Pig: Helping Children Discover

Onset and Rime

The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 8 May 2008658

2004). Decades ago, Stauffer (1970) described the expe-rience of sharing your work with peers as a “priceless”reward that reinforces motivation for literacy. We foundthat by setting aside time for students to share their dig-ital creations at the Author’s Computer Chair studentslearned to give and receive appropriate feedback. Thistime fostered discussion about the author’s organiza-tional system for the eSort and the multimedia designchoices. Again, collaboration between the researcherand teacher led us to try using an interactive white-board, or SMART Board (SMART Technologies), for stu-dents to present and manipulate their eSorts for theclassroom audience. The classroom teacher stated thatthese digital extensions of word study effectively en-gaged students because they “can then produce some-thing for an audience of their peers, and they lovereading each other’s pieces.”

Supporting Word Knowledgeand Positive Literacy AttitudesOverall, creating My eSorts and experience stories ap-peared to engage students in applying knowledge ofword features while fostering a positive attitude towardliteracy. Not only did the eSorts fill the classroom com-puter center with useful activities, but also these “student-authored eSorts stimulated rich among be-tween learners about their increasing knowledge of or-thography. We plan to continue studying the efficacy ofusing eSorts to advance students’ spelling knowledge.Children appeared particularly engaged and motivatedto use their experience story as a springboard for wordstudy. Even students like Katie, who demonstrated apoor attitude toward reading, reported very positivefeelings about reading activities at the computer. Whilethese findings are preliminary, it appears that digital ex-tensions of word study are promising and warrant fur-ther exploration and research.

Note: Many thanks to the classroom teacher,Virginia, for her reflective collaboration.

Zucker is a doctoral student at the University ofVirginia, Charlottesville, USA; e-mail taz3m@virginia.edu. Invernizzi teaches at the University of Virginia,Charlottesville; e-mail mai@virginia.edu.

ReferencesBear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008).

Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and

spelling instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

Ganske, K. (1999). The Developmental Spelling Analysis: A measureof orthographic knowledge. Educational Assessment, 6(1),41–70.

Hanlon, M.M., & Cantrell, J. (1999). Teaching a learning disabledadult to spell: Is it ever too late? Journal of Adolescent & AdultLiteracy, 43(1), 4–11.

Henderson, E.H. (1990). Teaching spelling. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Henderson, E.H., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspec-tive on formal spelling instruction through alphabet, pattern,and meaning. Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 292–316.

Invernizzi, M., & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental spelling research:A systematic imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2),216–228.

Labbo, L.D. (2004). Author’s Computer Chair. The Reading Teacher,57(7), 688–691.

Labbo, L.D., Eakle, A.J., & Montero, K.M. (2002). Digital LanguageExperience Approach: Using digital photographs and creativitysoftware as a Language Experience Approach innovation.Reading Online, 5(8). Retrieved March 25, 2008, from www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=labbo2/in-dex.html.

McKenna, M.C., & Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward read-ing: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9),626–639.

Mesmer, H.E., & Griffith, P.L. (2006). Everybody’s selling it—Butjust what is explicit, systematic phonics instruction? The ReadingTeacher, 59(4), 336–376.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read:An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literatureon reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIHPublication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Read, C. (1971). Pre-school children’s knowledge of English phonol-ogy. Harvard Educational Review, 41(1), 1–34.

Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investi-gating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elemen-tary students’ independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly,35(3), 384–419.

Stauffer, R.G. (1970). The Language-Experience Approach to theteaching of reading. New York: Harper & Row.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner,& E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Weber, W.R., & Henderson, E.H. (1989). A computer-based pro-gram of word study: Effects on reading and spelling. ReadingPsychology, 10(2), 157–171.

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

ING

TIP

S

T

EA

CH

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

I

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HIN

G T

IPS

TE

AC

HT

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

TIP

ST

EA

CH

ING

658