SpellingCity as a Study Tool

Introduction:

As a first-grade teacher, a lot of time is spent focusing on reading, writing, and spelling.

Afterall, these are the years considered to be the foundation of learning. It is important for

students to learn how to read, write, and spell in order to build on those skills and be successful

in their education. Many children come to first grade without knowing how to do any of these

things. Teaching a student how to read and spell can be difficult when they struggle with letters

and sounds in general. I began to notice my students getting bored quickly with the same spelling

practice by writing and repeating words and patterns. They began mixing patterns or forgetting

them all together. They were clearly not engaged in learning spelling words. This led me to my

research question: Does playing on SpellingCity for review at least twice per week increase

spelling test scores?

In my previous class last semester, students would study spelling words and patterns by

choosing an activity from a choice board. The choice board had many options, but it all consisted

of writing the spelling words in different ways in hopes of memorization. While it is true that

some words just have to be memorized due to breaking spelling rules, many of the first-grade

words should be learned by following the specific spelling patterns. SpellingCity seemed like a

great way to engage students while also reinforcing the spelling patterns they need to learn. With

an assortment of games, such as short or long vowels, letter teams, matching, and much more, I

was convinced this was what my students needed. To measure growth in spelling (aside from

weekly spelling tests), we use an assessment at the end of the quarter which consists of 30 words
containing all the spelling patterns learned so far. To conduct this research, I will be using my

current first-grade class of 20 students that utilized SpellingCity compared to my previous class

of 21 students that did not use SpellingCity.

Review of Literature:

Before beginning my own research, I read many studies that related closely to my topic.

While there were no listed studies about SpellingCity specifically, there were several researching

digital tools to help learn how to read and spell in early education. Of the five articles I reviewed,

many of them agreed there were visible benefits to using digital study tools when teaching

reading and spelling to 4–6-year-old students. In contrast, a couple of articles stated that benefits

were mainly seen in students with severe learning difficulties and/or ESOL students, and there

was little change in the general population of students.

The article, Using a Digital Spelling Game for Promoting Alphabetic Knowledge

of Preschoolers: The Contribution of Auditory and Visual Supports, explores the outcome of

children playing a digital spelling game to supplement learning in early literacy. The participants

were Hebrew-speaking children from low socio-economic backgrounds which refers back to the

hypothesis that these tools are mostly beneficial for students with English as a second language.

For the experiment, students were broken down into four groups: receiving auditory and visual

supports (with the game), receiving auditory supports (with the game), receiving visual supports

(with the game), and no support. It was hypothesized that the students receiving all supports with

the game would score significantly higher on the posttest. Upon completion of the study, their

hypothesis proved to be correct. I wondered how my question would fit into this study as I do not

have any ESOL students currently, but we had a lot in common. My students will be receiving
the same auditory and visual supports in spelling, but the test group will be receiving the game

support as well. I expect similar results to my hypothesis that students will score higher with

SpellingCity practice compared to those without it.

The next study, A Mobile Game as a Support Tool for Children with Severe Difficulties

in Reading and Spelling, also looks at the progress of students with learning disabilities and/or

ESOL supports. This study breaks these students into groups of those with low self-efficacy and

high self-efficacy. It was hypothesized that the students with high self-efficacy in game usage

would show significant growth on the posttest. It was proved to be true upon completion of the

study as 70% of all students in all groups showed growth, but students in the high self-efficacy

group had the highest gain (Ronimus, Eklund, Westerholm, Ketonen, & Lyytinen 2020). A

similar study conducted by the same group of people, Supporting Struggling Readers with

Digital Game-Based Learning, explored the use of digital games at home versus in-school with

struggling readers. The key findings proved that students using the game both in school and at

home scored higher on the posttest and developed a better understanding of reading and spelling

concepts compared to students only using it at school (Ronimus, Eklund, Pesu, & Lyytinen

2019). I expect to see similar results in my research, as the support from the game still exists and

proved to be beneficial to this study.

The last two studies I read were very similar in their hypotheses and key findings. The

study, Augmented Reality for Early Language Learning: A Systematic Review of Augmented

Reality Application Design, Instructional Strategies, and Evaluation Outcomes, explored a

general population of students receiving traditional and digital supports for spelling and reading.

The study found that students who received both supports and gameplay had more motivation to

meet their learning goals, as well as higher growth in reading and spelling (Fan, Antle, & Warren
2020). The article, Developmental Spelling: A Word Categorizing Instructional Experiment,

had similar findings in that students who played the digital spelling game and received class

instruction scored exponentially higher on the posttest (Watson 1988). My question fits into

these studies well by looking at the gameplay as a supplemental resource that increases student

averages on the posttest. I believe I will have a similar outcome to those of these studies and see

more growth in the group that receives instruction as well as gameplay on SpellingCity.

After researching what scholars found about this topic, I had a better idea of how to set

up this experiment with my students and felt confident that I’d see positive results. My

hypothesis remained the same: SpellingCity would be a good resource to improve their spelling

knowledge, in-turn improving their scores.

Methodology:

After reading the scholarly articles, I decided to compare two different classes. I chose

my class from last semester with 21 students and no SpellingCity support, and my current class

of 20 students receiving SpellingCity support. Each class was taught the same spelling patterns

using instruction from Orton-Gillingham, a structured literacy program implemented in our

district. They both received the same drills and letter practice.

To obtain my quantitative, I looked at weekly spelling test grades between the two

classes, as well as the end of quarter assessment consisting of 30 words from the same spelling

pattern. The spelling tests are out of 100 points, each word being worth ten points, and

administered every Friday during the quarter (roughly 9 weeks). The end of quarter assessment is

out of 30 points and is administered during the last week of the quarter. My current class played

SpellingCity twice a week in class, as well as receiving the Orton-Gillingham instruction. They
were also able to choose SpellingCity as a homework choice during the week, which many did.

The class from the previous semester received the same OG instruction but did not get

SpellingCity during class time or homework.

To obtain my qualitative data, I used several different methods such as class discussions,

interviewing my students, and observing during gameplay. Students had 30 minutes of gameplay

on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Fridays, we would play a couple of the games as a class on the

Smart Board to review for the spelling test. As students played on SpellingCity, I walked around

the room and watched. I would sit in on some groups and observe them playing. It quickly

became a competition to many students to see who could finish the same game the quickest. I

also observed some students get frustrated in games that asked them to fill in a missing letter. I

noticed the students that struggled with letter identification struggled the most with these games.

Interviewing the students gave me the most insight on how they felt about the game. Most

students would give comments like “I do better on my test when I practice on SpellingCity” or

“SpellingCity games are more fun than writing the words over and over again”. I tried creating a

rating system in Google Forms to help them relay how much or how little they enjoyed playing

Spelling City compared to the written spelling choice board. The rating system was confusing for

them, but after speaking with each student I found that 17 out of 20 students enjoyed

SpellingCity more than using the written choice board for review.

Analysis:

After conducting interviews with my students and observing their progress on

SpellingCity and the posttest, I began analyzing my data. To do this, I went back to the

gradebook from the previous class and compared it with my current class. I compared two main
points of data: class average for spelling from each class and the class average of the end of

quarter test for each class. While my current class using SpellingCity as a support did have

higher averages in both data points, I was surprised that it was not a bigger difference. My

current class maintained a high C-average in both data points, while my previous class without

SpellingCity support maintained a low C-average.

Spring 2021 (currently enrolled class using Spelling City)

Stats:
Number Enrolled: 20
Class average on the end of quarter test: 78%
Class spelling average for the quarter: 77%
Breakdown of test score by letter grade:

Spring 2021
9

0
A B C D F

Fall 2020 (previous class that never used SpellingCity)

Stats:
Number Enrolled: 21
Class average on the end of quarter test: 75%
Class spelling average for the quarter: 74%
Breakdown of test scores by letter grade:

Fall 2020
6

0
A B C D F

The following graphs show data conducted through digital interviews. Pre-assessment data is

shown first, with post-assessment data shown second. This data was only conducted with my

current class on their enjoyment of spelling before and after being introduced to SpellingCity.
How much do you enjoy spelling? (PRE)

6, 30% 6, 30%

8, 40%

Very much Somewhat Not at all

How much do you enjoy spelling? (POST)

10

Very much Somewhat Not at all

Do you think a spelling game will help you learn better?
(PRE)

2
5
2

11

I don't know Yes No Maybe

Do you think a spelling game will help you learn better?

(POST)
0

3 2

15

I don't know Yes No Maybe

The next set of data was given verbally by random students from each category of data when

asked why they felt that way about their experience with SpellingCity (students are not yet able

to type complete thoughts into digital formats).

• I like SpellingCity because it makes learning spelling easier.

• I don’t think it helps me learn better because I can practice better when I write it and my

brain remembers it.

• SpellingCity is gets boring doing the same games all the time.

• It is fun to do because I like to win the games.

Findings:

After conducting this action research project and reviewing the data, I was honestly a

little shocked to find that both groups scored so closely to each other. The data collected was

mere points away from being the same each time. After reviewing all the research and articles by

scholars, I was sure to see a drastic change in the current group compared to the previous group.

I do not think the class size had anything to do with the data, as there was only a difference of

one student. My best guess would be the rigor of the game and repetition of games did not hold

their attention long enough to keep them motivated or engaged. As one student mentioned, he

was bored with doing the same games day after day. SpellingCity is not a program that grows

with them and builds on skills. It is the same experience for every student, which could be why I

did not see the progress I anticipated. On the other hand, the duration and frequency of gameplay

might have affected the data as well. If I made them play more often, the findings might’ve been

different.
 These findings have me thinking about how I can use a digital game to increase my

students’ engagement and progress in the future. I believe this will involve more research into

the games on my part and choosing something that can be tailored to individual students.

References

Elimelech, A., & Aram, D. (2020). Using a Digital Spelling Game for Promoting Alphabetic
Knowledge of Preschoolers: The Contribution of Auditory and Visual Supports. Reading
Research Quarterly, 55(2), 235–250.

Fan, M., Antle, A. N., & Warren, J. L. (2020). Augmented Reality for Early Language Learning:
A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality Application Design, Instructional Strategies,
and Evaluation Outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(6), 1059-
1100.

Ronimus, M., Eklund, K., Pesu, L., & Lyytinen, H. (2019). Supporting Struggling Readers with
Digital Game-Based Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,
67(3), 639–663.

Ronimus, M., Eklund, K., Westerholm, J., Ketonen, R., & Lyytinen, H. (2020). A Mobile Game
as a Support Tool for Children with Severe Difficulties in Reading and Spelling. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 1011–1025.

Watson, A. J. (1988). Developmental Spelling: A Word Categorizing Instructional Experiment.

Journal of Educational Research, 82(2), 82–88.