Pathways to literacy: A study of invented spelling and its role in learning to read.
Ouellette, G., & Senechal, M. (2008). Child Development, 79(4), 899–913. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ802141
-
examining46Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Invented spelling—Ouellette and Senechal (2008))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Trained Letter sounds |
Invented spelling—Ouellette and Senechal (2008) vs. Intervention |
4 Weeks |
Phonological awareness group versus Drawing group;
|
11.46 |
11.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter Sound Knowledge |
Invented spelling—Ouellette and Senechal (2008) vs. Intervention |
4 Weeks |
Phonological awareness group versus Drawing group;
|
20.35 |
19.74 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness Composite Score |
Invented spelling—Ouellette and Senechal (2008) vs. Intervention |
4 Weeks |
Phonological awareness group versus Drawing group ;
|
32.78 |
30.26 |
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.
-
- 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
International
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in four English schools in a large Canadian city. Children received their assigned intervention in a small group format, which depended on the number of children participating from each school but ranged from 3-6 children.
Study sample
Among the 69 participating students, 39 were female, and the mean age was 5 years and 7 months. The majority of the sample was Caucasian; however, 43.5% reported speaking a second language at the home including French (27.5%), Asian (4.3%), and other European languages (11.5%). Children in the Canadian city in which the study took place only attend school for half of the day. They have not received direct phonics instruction beyond exposure to the alphabet.
Intervention Group
The intervention was delivered in nine sessions across a 4-week period midway through the students' senior kindergarten year. Each session lasted approximately 25 minutes and equivalent instructional time was given to all groups/conditions. Phonological Awareness: Students in this condition were taught to analyze words into smaller segments and two segmentation related tasks were taught. Each session began with letter-sound training for targeted sounds. Children matched pictures based on shared initial and final sounds, using the first 10 of the 20 training words in the same order and frequency as the invented-spelling group. A sheet was given to each child, which contained the appropriate picture, along with three other pictures. The instructor named all pictures in the same fashion as in the invented-spelling group. For each word, children circled the pictures that started or ended the same. Individual feedback was then provided to each child and each trial was then repeated.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was the Drawing group. This group received similar instruction to the invented-spelling group; however, instead of writing each word, they were asked to draw a picture instead. Similar to the invented-spelling group, they heard each word four times and said each word once in unison. The instructor provided positive feedback following the completion of each drawing. Similar to both of the other groups, the procedure was repeated using the same word. The children in this control group also received letter-sound training at the beginning of each session.
Support for implementation
Three highly experienced tutors were used for this study, which included a speech language pathologist that had previous experience delivering interventions to children, a licensed classroom teacher, and an experienced research assistant. Each of these three instructors each taught two invented-spelling groups, two phonological-awareness groups, and two control groups. The specifics of the training were not discussed in the article.
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).