Darch, Craig; Eaves, Ronald C.; Crowe, D. Alan; Simmons, Kate; Conniff, Alexandra (2006). Journal of Direct Instruction, v6 n1 p1-16. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ755191
Reviewed: January 2014
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Maintenance test (author created) |
Spelling Mastery vs. HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
11.24 |
8.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Generalization test (author created) |
Spelling Mastery vs. HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
7.19 |
5.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
Transfer test (author created) |
Spelling Mastery vs. HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
9.76 |
7.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Written Spelling (TWS)-3 |
Spelling Mastery vs. HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
18.33 |
14.33 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Participants were attending specialized programs for students with learning disabilities in special education classrooms in eastern Alabama.
Forty-four students were randomly assigned, and the analysis sample for this study included 42 students with learning disabilities at three elementary schools. The students were classified as learning disabled by the school district’s special education review committee in accordance with state and federal guidelines, including a one standard deviation discrepancy between tested intelligence and achievement. Students were between 8 and 12 years of age and in grades 2 through 4. Thirty-two students were male and 10 were female. Full-scale IQs ranged from 80 to 116, with an average of 87. Within each school, the students were randomly assigned to instructional groups of three to six students each. Four of the eight groups included a total of 21 intervention students, and the other four groups included a total of 21 comparison students. The study does not specify the distribution of the eight intervention and comparison instructional groups across schools, and the authors did not respond to a request for this information. The analysis sample of 42 students excluded two students (one intervention student and one comparison student) who were randomly assigned but who were absent for much of the study period.
Students in the intervention group received instruction from Level D of the Spelling Mastery program (students did not receive the entire Level D program). The teacher followed scripted lessons, and each week’s sessions focused on a different type of word (e.g., phonetically regular words, phonetically regular words with a prefix or suffix, irregular words). Lessons were organized around three instructional activities: (1) introduction of the spelling rule in whole group instruction time (5–7 minutes); (2) application of the spelling rule, also in wholegroup instruction (10–12 minutes); and (3) independent worksheet practice while the teacher circulated to assist as necessary (5–7 minutes). The intervention was implemented in sixteen 30-minute sessions over a 4-week period with each session focusing on six words. All words taught had a fourth-grade level of difficulty.
The comparison group was taught the same words as the intervention group using traditional basal instruction (HBJ Spelling and Laidlaw Spelling). Lessons were organized around three instructional activities: (1) a pretest, self-corrected by students using whole-group instruction (5–7 minutes); (2) independent worksheet practice with the teacher circulating to assist as necessary (10–12 minutes); and (3) follow-up activities, including dictionary and handwriting skill training activities (5–7 minutes).
Four tests were administered after the intervention was completed, all in the writing domain. The measures included the Test of Written Spelling (TWS) including Predictable Words and Unpredictable Words subtests, a Generalization test, a Transfer test, and a Maintenance test. Four unit tests were also administered but are not included in this report. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Each of three teachers delivered spelling instruction to both the intervention and comparison groups. The teachers were graduate students enrolled in a masters program in learning disabilities from a mid-sized southeastern university. The study authors provided three 1-hour training sessions to each teacher. The first author supervised, critiqued, and evaluated the teachers as they role-played teaching the scripted lessons. Prior to implementation, teachers were required to demonstrate adequate performance during role-playing situations.
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