DT>The purpose of this study was to document the development of spelling
DT>knowledge in a class of first grade students over an eight month period. 
Ok...
DT>Of special interest was to determine if spelling, particularly invented 
DT>spelling, was predictive of word recognition at the end of the year.
So the goal was not proper spelling, apparently?
DT>In September students were assessed with a Letter Identification Test
DT>(Clay, 1985, 1993) which measured knowledge of 54 letters.
Huh?  26 in the alphabet, 52 if we count capitalization...
Or is this "letters" as in letters written TO someone?
DT>Measures of conventional spelling and invented spelling were obtained 
DT>in September, November and January.
So far so good...
DT>Conventional spelling was measured with the Writing Vocabulary Test 
DT>(Clay, 1985, 1993); the score was the number of self-generated 
DT>conventionally spelled words in list format. An analysis form and 
DT>scoring system, based on Gentry's stages of invented spelling,
DT>was devised to analyze the invented spelling which was obtained from
DT>naturalistic writing samples.
Whoa... Two different measuring "devices" to COMPARE the
results?!  Or did both groups take both devices?  What,
exactly, does the Gentry scoring system "measure"? 
DT>In May two subtests (Word Identification and Word Attack)
Note: Not spelling....
DT>from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (1987) were 
DT>administered; these were the criterion variables in the multiple
DT>regression analyses.
Both groups took the same test?
DT>A descriptive account of four spellers in the class, two girls and two
DT>boys, is also included. Their spelling growth is documented from the
DT>beginning of the year to the end of the year.
Too small a sample to be of value...
DT>(3) invented spelling can be reliably assessed using naturalistic writing 
DT>samples;
How do they arrive at THIS conclusion when their study had
nothing whatever to do with testing for this?
DT>(5) children's spelling changed qualitatively and at different rates;
No details?  This could mean ANYTHING?!
DT>(6) children did learn to spell in the absence of a traditional 
DT>spelling program, as shown by the Writing Vocabulary Test results 
DT>and naturalistic writing samples.
But are we comparing a "traditional" approach to a
literature-based approach, and are we assessing SPELLING?
It doesn't appear that this study is doing that, and we are
left with no clear indication of relative merit....
DT>Invented spelling reflects knowledge of alphabet letter identities 
Etc... I'm not disputing that kids have to attempt to spell,
and in so doing, they will, initially, make mistakes... It
is this that you are calling invented spelling, and it is a
natural occurance.
I'm also not disputing that there are things which can be 
learned from such invented spelling; benefits that may
accrue.  What I DO dispute is that SPELLING is taught as 
well through invented spelling in a literature-based program 
as it is in the conventional methodology.  There is nothing 
in this study which alters that point of view, or even 
TOUCHES on the topic.  This is about "word recognition", not
spelling, and there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to
compare results of differing methodologies.. What, exactly,
has been proven here?
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * When DOS grows up it wants to be OS/2!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.3M1f
---------------