-> I don't want to dissect this study....the goal was to document
-> "spelling knowledge."  Of special interest was to determine if
-> invented spelling was predictive of word recognition.  It was a
-> strong predictor.
Be careful. From what you posted of the study, I didn't see how they
determined that their was any cause-effect relationship established.
Certainly they observed a high correlation between students who used
invented spelling and then later had good word recognition. But how can
it be ascertained from a purely observational study whether students, in
the absence of a traditional spelling program, and who therefore resort
to their only alternative, invented spelling, wouldn't have had good
word recognition anyhow? Perhaps what is really happening here is that
students with a propensity for good word recognition resort to invented
spelling in the absence of any other spelling program. From an
observational case study you have NO WAY of determining the cause and
effect relationship here, which has been a point that Ron McDermott
tried to make to you unsuccessfully some time back. All you can glean
from an observational study is that there is a high correlation between
the two, and that it bears further investigation in a more highly
structured and controlled experiment. If you believe that what you
posted here indicates that invented spelling PREDICTS word recognition,
then you mislead yourself.
Sheila King
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------