Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Spelling (not) an indicator?

I was just reminded of this question I had a while back, so I thought why not ask the experts?

When my son was being evaluated last year for the ps gt program, the gt teacher mentioned that spelling well was not considered much of an indicator of giftedness. I was surprised, I figured ok, there must be some reason for discounting this, but it still seems like it would be an indicator of good memory, potential for achievement and possibly related to reading ability.

I figured not spelling well could not be considered a reason to rule out giftedness, but not the other way around.

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? It did not impact his results, but I am curious!

Yes, it seems like the context matters here.

I'd be willing to bet that the kids who go to Washington D.C. for the National Spelling Bee are probably ALL GT! But is the kid who gets "there" and "their" straight necessarily GT? I'd say no more likely than the kid who can't get them straight.

I am wondering if it is an age thing, like reading early is considered G but reading in general is not an indicator. Spelling early is probably an indicator but spelling in general, not.

ren

Maybe it's a learning style thing as well. I think strong visual-spatial learners probably don't spell as well. Alone, I don't think good spelling probably means a whole lot unless you are talking pre-K! Combined with other strengths, it can.

National spelling bee kids are just at a whole other level. I'd be willing to bet most of those kids have a lot more information than just spelling words!

I was thinking about this the other day actually. You know that article that circulates around that talks about how people only look at the first letter and last letter to read words? I was wondering if kids who pick up reading quickly and start reading with the more mature pattern of only seeing the first and last letter become worse spellers due to less time spent noticing letter combinations. DS6 was a really good speller for a while, he could spell words that really surprised me at 4yo. But, at 6 his spelling is becoming poor, words he used to spell without thinking he now is asking about. I think it's because he no longer thinks about what letters make what words, it's completely automatic when he reads (he was able to read that article, which I thought was pretty cool, though he didn't notice right away that the letters were mixed up).

Anyways, just my completely unresearched theory.

That is a great insight mamandmore! And it explains so much. DS8 could spell wonderfully at a younger age as well. And he still does extremely well on spelling tests, when he takes his time and is careful. But in his writing....

I always assumed that his brain was just going faster than his hand. But your explanation makes more sense. Has anyone else's kid taught themselves to speed read? DS's teacher last year actually timed him, by making him read out loud. (he reads even faster silently.) I think he reads so fast by not really looking at the letter combinations inside the words anymore?

funny, I almost showed that little article thing to my DS4 to see if he could do it. I am pretty sure he could...but in the end decided to show it to DH instead (who was thankfully able to read it easily). Interesting about spelling changing. My DS4 can spell great, but lately he has been asking how to spell things that he knows, then I will say "what do you think?" and then he will spell it right. Not sure why he started second guessing himself. He is even good about always remembering silent letters and all sorts of stuff in words I would have know idea he would know.

I guess that spelling is just too unstable a skill to use as a good indicator. Interesting.
I have noticed once or twice that I see words as pictures built with letters - not just reading first and last letter, and I dont mean picture in my head..I mean the letters together make an easily recognizable shape and if another word is close enough to it sometimes I might misread it, but this misreading is rare. I do not read super fast, but pretty fast, and I am a good speller. Does anyone else notice seeing/reading words that way?
What article is this, mamaandmore? Can someone post a link? thanks!

I can't promise profound...

I was an absolutely LOUSY speller as a kid, despite being GT and positively addicted to reading. In the big 5th grade spelling bee, I went out in the first round. No one could believe it, since I was the "smart one" in the class, especially verbally. The teacher actually gave me a second crack at the word because she figured I must have misheard her or something. It was very embarrassing.

To this day, I cannot spell a difficult word unless I can write the word down, and then I often make a mistake the first time. I do SEE the mistake as soon as it is on paper, but I need to use my eyes to catch it. I think I am a visual-verbal person, if there is such a creature, because I'm very visual but not spatial. (I'm beginning to suspect that might be what DS7 is, too, BTW.)

DS7 is very good at sounding words out, but his spelling tends to be phonetic, which is not always correct in the goofy English language. I wouldn't say he's a better speller than average. He does fine, but I don't think he spells things that other kids his age couldn't spell.

I suspect spelling is one of those odd obsessions kids might choose to have, as my son chose cars or Transformers. But NOT choosing spelling as an obsession doesn't necessarily mean a child isn't GT. I suspect the English language is so goofy that a child isn't likely to have a natural talent for spelling--at least not with very advanced words--without some study. But if the child studies spelling, that could indicate GTness.

No evidence, just anecdote...

This is the what I read: "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

It looks like it's a misinterpretation of some research that was done previously, there's an interesting discussion of what the research actually says at http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/ I'm sorry I referenced this without checking it out!

Even if the references in the article aren't correct, I still suspect that being a good speller might be helped by being a careful reader (which my DS6 isn't, he's fast and has good comprehension, but not careful).

ETA: Dottie and Kriston got in while I was writing this (it's one of those mornings, lol)!