Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669–686.
Reviewed: February 2023
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Supplemental spelling instruction—Graham et al. (2002) vs. Other intervention |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
84.20 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Supplemental spelling instruction—Graham et al. (2002) vs. Other intervention |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
89.50 |
87.30 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
In two schools, the intervention took place in a quiet part of the classroom, while in the other two schools, it took place in another room or in a hallway outside of the classroom. The intervention was administered to pairs of students.
Over half of the students in the study were male, black, and were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, and just under half had a disability. Regular classroom teachers spent an average of 81 minutes per week on spelling instruction.
The intervention consisted of 48 20-minute lessons divided equally into 8 units, delivered three times per week from November to April. Children participated in the lessons in the same pairs, chosen by the teachers and experimenters, throughout the study. Lessons in each unit included the following activities: (1) Student pairs sorted words into categories based on spelling patterns; (2) Students searched for additional words that fit the spelling patterns; (3) Students were given 8 words to study; (4) Students practiced sound-letter correspondences; (5) Students built words by adding a consonant sound to a rime introduced by the instructor; (6) Students took a unit test based on the 8 words they studied; and (7) Students reviewed patterns introduced in the prior unit. - The intervention supplements the regular spelling and reading curriculum. - The authors do not indicate that there is a home component or a script associated with the intervention. - Six graduate students majoring in education implemented both the intervention and the comparison conditions. - Instructors were provided with step-by-step instructions for each lesson, including a checklist. The study does not provide a list of other materials used. - There is no mention of a formative assessment.
Students in the comparison condition participated in mathematics instruction for the same number of instructional sessions. The lessons were also divided into units, and students worked in pairs using a modified version of the Peer-Assisted Learning math program (Fuchs et al., 1994, 1995).
The graduate students who implemented the intervention were taught how to implement the interventions over a 2 week period. They were provided with directions for implementing each lesson, and they practiced implementing them until they could do so according to the specifications.
Reviewed: June 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669–686.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide