Effectiveness of Visual Imagery versus Rule-Based Strategies in Teaching Spelling to Learning Disabled Students.
Darch, Craig; Simpson, Robert G. (1990). Research in Rural Education, v7 n1 p61-70. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ418893
-
examining28Students, grade4
Spelling Mastery Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2014
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Spelling Mastery.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Spelling Test (author created) |
Spelling Mastery vs. HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling |
1-day post |
Grade 4;
|
17.50 |
11.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Written Spelling (TWS): Predictable Words subtest |
Spelling Mastery vs. HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling |
1-day post |
Grade 4;
|
29.20 |
24.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Written Spelling (TWS): Unpredictable Words subtest |
Spelling Mastery vs. HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling |
1-day post |
Grade 4;
|
15.20 |
11.20 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 57% -
Rural
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 25% White 75%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a university-based summer program in the rural southwestern United States.
Study sample
The sample for this study included 28 fourth-grade students with learning disabilities who had a history of low academic achievement. Twenty-one students were White, seven students were Black, and 16 were male. The mean age of the entire sample was 10 years 6 months. The mean full scale IQ for the entire sample was 92. The students were identified by their local districts as learning disabled based on both federal and state guidelines. The students were randomly assigned either to the Spelling Mastery or Visual Imagery interventions. The study does not specify the number of students in each condition, and the authors did not reply to a request for this information. Four teachers were randomly assigned to teach the interventions, two to each intervention. The authors did not report any attrition and did not respond to a request for this information.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group received instruction through lesson 40 of the Level C Spelling Mastery program (the full program has 137 lessons). The teacher followed scripted lessons included with the program to teach students how to recognize the meaning of the smallest word segment that has meaning (morphograph) and to identify these segments within words. Students then practiced spelling words composed of learned segments by identifying the segments and then spelling the whole words. Students were also taught spelling rules and practiced using the rules with relevant examples. Finally, teachers instructed on several spelling rules that enabled a spelling strategy to apply to many words, such as dropping the ‘e’ when adding ‘ing’ to the end of a word. Teachers provided Spelling Mastery instruction for 25–30 minutes per day for 25 days during a 6-week period.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received Visual Imagery and were presented with the same practice words as the students in the Spelling Mastery group. When a word was presented, students were directed to look at the word and apply a four-step Visual Imagery model: • after covering the word, the teacher asked the students if they could see the image of the word in their minds; • students were directed to imagine the word displayed on a large outdoor screen; • students were asked to imagine each letter of the word pasted onto the screen; and • students were told to remember the word by visualizing themselves nailing the letters of the word onto the screen. Students were then asked to apply the Visual Imagery strategy to several other words without teacher assistance. This independent practice typically required 5–8 minutes. Teachers provided Visual Imagery instruction for 25–30 minutes per day for 25 days during a 6-week period.
Outcome descriptions
Three tests in the writing domain were administered after the intervention was completed. The measures included a spelling test developed by the study authors and the Test of Written Spelling (TWS) Predictable Words and Unpredictable Words subtests (the authors do not report a composite TWS score). Three unit tests were also administered but are not included in this report. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
The senior author met with each of the four study teachers twice for roughly one hour each time. During these training sessions, the correct instructional procedures for the appropriate spelling program were modeled. Through role-playing, the teachers practiced the instructional procedures and were critiqued by the senior author. All teachers were judged to have mastered their respective instructional strategies.
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).