Spelling is a foundational literacy skill closely connected to reading and writing. A review of 53 studies with more than 6,000 students in kindergarten through grade 12 found that formally teaching spelling improved students' spelling, including in their own writing, and also improved their phonological awareness (effect size 0.51) and reading skills (effect size 0.44). A 2024 analysis of 81 studies reached a similar conclusion: on average, spelling instruction and intervention had a positive effect. A review of 11 studies of students at risk for literacy difficulties found that those taught to build and write words from letter-sound relationships outperformed comparison groups in spelling and also in phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, comprehension, and writing. This fits research on how children store words in memory: they bond each word's spelling to its pronunciation and meaning, and that stored knowledge is what lets them read the word by sight, spell it from memory, and learn new vocabulary from print.

​

Spelling matters for writing, too. A U.S. Department of Education practice guide for elementary writing recommends teaching students to become fluent with spelling, along with handwriting, sentence construction, typing, and word processing, and rates the evidence as moderate. The guide explains that when these basic skills become relatively effortless, students can focus more on developing and communicating their ideas. Spelling also shapes how writing is judged: across five studies, teachers and teachers in training scored the same paper lower when it contained spelling errors.

​

Key Sources

​

• Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

• Petersen-Brown, S., & Kromminga, K. R. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of spelling instruction and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 61(8), 3315–3338. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23223

• Weiser, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 170–200. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310396719

• Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

• Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/17

• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v44i4.6687

• Pan, S. C., Rickard, T. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2021). Does spelling still matter—and if so, how should it be taught? Perspectives from contemporary and historical research. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1523–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09611-y

Children pick up some spelling from reading, but a research review concluded this is usually not enough to make them good spellers: they need systematic instruction in how the writing system works, not just memorization of individual words. The same review found that studying words and the patterns they follow is more effective than phonics instruction alone. A meta-analysis of 53 studies found formal spelling instruction produced better spelling than informal or incidental approaches. Teaching morphology (prefixes, suffixes, bases, and roots) benefits learners from preschool through grade 8, is no less effective for younger students, and works best combined with other literacy instruction. A 2024 meta-analysis of 28 studies of primary school children found small-to-moderate gains in spelling from morphology instruction, including gains on words that were not directly taught.

Key Sources

​

• Treiman, R. (2018). Teaching and learning spelling. Child Development Perspectives, 12(4), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12292

• Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

• Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353

• Colenbrander, D., von Hagen, A., Kohnen, S., Wegener, S., Ko, K., Beyersmann, E., Behzadnia, A., Parrila, R., & Castles, A. (2024). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy outcomes for children in English-speaking countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36(4), Article 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09953-3

A short diagnostic spelling test shows where a student is ready to begin. In a study of 252 students in grades 2–5, accuracy on a spelling list was closely tied to the quality of students' misspellings: students scoring 60% or more made sensible, pattern-based errors, while those below 40% showed little knowledge of spelling patterns. The researchers concluded this supports the idea of a spelling "instructional level." Widely used word-study programs build on this research with spelling inventories that teachers use to assess students and track their progress. More broadly, a major review found that formative assessment, meaning frequent feedback used to adjust teaching, produces substantial learning gains.

​

Key Sources

​

• Morris, D., Nelson, L., & Perney, J. (1986). Exploring the concept of "spelling instructional level" through the analysis of error-types. The Elementary School Journal, 87(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/461488

• Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2020). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (7th ed.). Pearson.

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Students learn best when instruction begins where they are, not where their grade level says they should be. In a controlled study of 48 low-achieving third graders, those taught with second-grade word lists for most of the year outperformed comparison students on second-grade and transfer words, and did about as well on third-grade words. In a second-grade classroom, low spellers who first studied first-grade short-vowel words nearly caught up with their average-achieving classmates by the end of the year. This fits Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development": the gap between what a student can do alone and what they can do with guidance.

​

Key Sources

​

• Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching low-achieving spellers at their "instructional level." The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1086/461820

• Brown, J., & Morris, D. (2005). Meeting the needs of low spellers in a second-grade classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560590915969

• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

The Cycle follows what researchers call the test-study-test method. Students take a pretest, study the words they missed, and then retest. Studies going back to the 1920s and 1930s found that testing before study was more effective than having students study every word before a single test. A 2021 review in Educational Psychology Review traced this research and identified spelling tests, used to build learning rather than only to measure it, as a promising research-backed method. A 2014 meta-analysis of 53 studies (6,037 students, K–12) found formal spelling instruction improved spelling (effect size 0.54), with gains that lasted over time and carried over into students' writing.

​

Key Sources

​

• Fitzsimmons, R. J., & Loomer, B. M. (1978). Spelling: Learning and instruction. Iowa State Department of Public Instruction and The University of Iowa. Full text

• Pan, S. C., Rickard, T. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2021). Does spelling still matter—and if so, how should it be taught? Perspectives from contemporary and historical research. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1523–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09611-y

• Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

• Horn, T. D. (1947). The effect of the corrected test on learning to spell. The Elementary School Journal, 47(5), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1086/462325

Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning, though the type of feedback and how it is given matter. A 2020 meta-analysis of 435 studies and more than 61,000 participants found a medium overall effect of feedback on learning (d = 0.48), with the largest effects for feedback that carries the most information. A meta-analysis of feedback-timing studies found that applied classroom studies using real quizzes and materials usually favored immediate feedback over delayed feedback. In spelling, Horn's research found that the corrected test, in which students check their spelling against the correct one, was the single most important factor in spelling achievement.

​

Key Sources

​

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

• Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087

• Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058001079

• Horn, T. D. (1947). The effect of the corrected test on learning to spell. The Elementary School Journal, 47(5), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1086/462325

• Fitzsimmons, R. J., & Loomer, B. M. (1978). Spelling: Learning and instruction. Iowa State Department of Public Instruction and The University of Iowa. Full text

Each student practices the words they actually need, not a one-size-fits-all class list. The test-study-test research behind The Cycle rests on this idea: a pretest lets each student focus study on the words they have not yet mastered. A national survey of 168 primary teachers found that teachers estimated 27% of their students struggled with spelling, yet 42% of teachers made few or no adaptations for weaker spellers. A controlled classroom study suggests struggling spellers make more progress when their word lists match what they are ready to learn.

​

Key Sources

​

• Pan, S. C., Rickard, T. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2021). Does spelling still matter—and if so, how should it be taught? Perspectives from contemporary and historical research. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1523–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09611-y

• Fitzsimmons, R. J., & Loomer, B. M. (1978). Spelling: Learning and instruction. Iowa State Department of Public Instruction and The University of Iowa. Full text

• Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., & Mason, L. (2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades: A national survey of instructional practices and adaptations. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 796–825. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208319722

• Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching low-achieving spellers at their "instructional level." The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1086/461820

Recalling each spelling from memory on a low-stakes test builds stronger learning than restudying it. This is called the testing effect, or retrieval practice. In a widely cited experiment, restudying did better on a test five minutes later, but prior testing produced much better retention two days and one week later. A meta-analysis of practice-testing research found practice tests more beneficial for learning than restudying and every other comparison condition. A review of 50 classroom experiments found that a majority (57%) of effects were medium or large, across a variety of education levels. For spelling specifically, first and second graders spelled more words correctly after retrieval practice than after rainbow writing (repeated copying in colors), and liked it at least as much.

​

Key Sources

​

• Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

• Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306

• Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1409–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

• Jones, A. C., Wardlow, L., Pan, S. C., Zepeda, C., Heyman, G. D., Dunlosky, J., & Rickard, T. C. (2016). Beyond the rainbow: Retrieval practice leads to better spelling than does rainbow writing. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9330-6

Students move on only after mastering the current words, with extra practice for anyone who needs it. Benjamin Bloom introduced this model in 1968, arguing that most students, perhaps over 90 percent, can master what they are taught when given enough time and corrective help. A meta-analysis of 108 controlled evaluations found mastery learning programs improved exam performance, with effects that appeared stronger for weaker students. Guskey (2007) revisits Bloom's case that mastery learning can reduce achievement gaps, and notes research showing gains in confidence, attendance, and attitudes as well.

​

Key Sources

​

• Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2). UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED053419

• Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060002265

• Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's "Learning for Mastery." Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-704

Reviewing words over days and weeks produces better long-term memory than cramming the same practice into one session. A synthesis of 317 experiments found that spacing practice out improved retention, and that the best gap between sessions grows as the time until the final test grows. In a fifth-grade classroom study, students who reviewed new words a week later remembered nearly three times as many five weeks on, with the same 10 minutes of total practice. A third-grade classroom study found the same spacing benefit for vocabulary at one and five weeks. A 2013 review of ten study techniques rated distributed (spaced) practice as one of only two with high utility.

​

Key Sources

​

• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

• Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 763–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1747

• Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (2012). Spreading the words: A spacing effect in vocabulary learning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.722617

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Producing a word's spelling builds stronger memory for that word than reading it alone. In a controlled study, third graders learned the letter patterns of new words better when they practiced spelling them than when they only read them. A study of second graders found that spelling practice transferred to reading more strongly than reading practice transferred to spelling. In a 2014 study, second graders heard each word dictated and then spelled it by printing or typing; both produced strong learning, and how well typing worked depended on each child's existing keyboarding skill. Research has not isolated hearing the word as the active ingredient; the consistent finding is that producing the spelling from memory is what builds learning. Cover-copy-compare, a self-managed routine in which students look at a word, cover it, write it from memory, and check it, is supported by a substantial number of studies across skills and for students with and without disabilities.

​

Key Sources

​

• Shahar-Yames, D., & Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00359.x

• Conrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012544

• Ouellette, G., & Tims, T. (2014). The write way to spell: Printing vs. typing effects on orthographic learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00117

• Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7(3), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022823522040

• Joseph, L. M., Konrad, M., Cates, G., Vajcner, T., Eveleigh, E., & Fishley, K. M. (2012). A meta-analytic review of the cover-copy-compare and variations of this self-management procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20622

• Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306

• Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1409–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

• Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2020). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (7th ed.). Pearson.

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

• Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2). UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED053419

• Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353

• Brown, J., & Morris, D. (2005). Meeting the needs of low spellers in a second-grade classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560590915969

• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

• Colenbrander, D., von Hagen, A., Kohnen, S., Wegener, S., Ko, K., Beyersmann, E., Behzadnia, A., Parrila, R., & Castles, A. (2024). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy outcomes for children in English-speaking countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36(4), Article 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09953-3

• Conrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012544

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

• Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

• Fitzsimmons, R. J., & Loomer, B. M. (1978). Spelling: Learning and instruction. Iowa State Department of Public Instruction and The University of Iowa. https://publications.iowa.gov/49745/1/spelling_learning_and_instruction_1978_OCR_.pdf

• Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (2012). Spreading the words: A spacing effect in vocabulary learning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.722617

• Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/17

• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v44i4.6687

• Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., & Mason, L. (2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades: A national survey of instructional practices and adaptations. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 796–825. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208319722

• Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

• Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's "Learning for Mastery." Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-704

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

• Horn, T. D. (1947). The effect of the corrected test on learning to spell. The Elementary School Journal, 47(5), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1086/462325

• Jones, A. C., Wardlow, L., Pan, S. C., Zepeda, C., Heyman, G. D., Dunlosky, J., & Rickard, T. C. (2016). Beyond the rainbow: Retrieval practice leads to better spelling than does rainbow writing. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9330-6

• Joseph, L. M., Konrad, M., Cates, G., Vajcner, T., Eveleigh, E., & Fishley, K. M. (2012). A meta-analytic review of the cover-copy-compare and variations of this self-management procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20622

• Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408

• Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060002265

• Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058001079

• Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching low-achieving spellers at their "instructional level." The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1086/461820

• Morris, D., Nelson, L., & Perney, J. (1986). Exploring the concept of "spelling instructional level" through the analysis of error-types. The Elementary School Journal, 87(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/461488

• Ouellette, G., & Tims, T. (2014). The write way to spell: Printing vs. typing effects on orthographic learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00117

• Pan, S. C., Rickard, T. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2021). Does spelling still matter—and if so, how should it be taught? Perspectives from contemporary and historical research. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1523–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09611-y

• Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning (RR-1365-BMGF). RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1365

• Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., Hamilton, L. S., & Pane, J. D. (2017). Informing progress: Insights on personalized learning implementation and effects (RR-2042-BMGF). RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2042

• Petersen-Brown, S., & Kromminga, K. R. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of spelling instruction and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 61(8), 3315–3338. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23223

• Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2022). Successive relearning: An underexplored but potent technique for obtaining and maintaining knowledge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(4), 362–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221100484

• Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Sciartelli, S. M. (2013). The power of successive relearning: Improving performance on course exams and long-term retention. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9240-4

• Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

• Shahar-Yames, D., & Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00359.x

• Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7(3), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022823522040

• Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 763–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1747

• Treiman, R. (2018). Teaching and learning spelling. Child Development Perspectives, 12(4), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12292

• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

• Weiser, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 170–200. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310396719

• Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087