Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of spelling instruction and intervention

IF 1.8 3区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL

Psychology in the Schools Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI:10.1002/pits.23223

Shawna Petersen‐Brown, Kourtney R. Kromminga

{"title":"Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of spelling instruction and intervention","authors":"Shawna Petersen‐Brown, Kourtney R. Kromminga","doi":"10.1002/pits.23223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is important for students to develop spelling skills, and spelling skills have been found to benefit the development of reading and writing skills. Past reviews and meta‐analyses supported the effectiveness of spelling instruction at improving a variety of academic outcomes including spelling, reading, and writing. This review and meta‐analysis contributes to this research and extends the current research on the impact of implementation characteristics on effectiveness. This review and meta‐analysis included 81 studies (43 group design and 38 single‐case design [SCD]). The meta‐analysis indicated an average effect of spelling instruction and intervention that was small in the group design research (g = 0.319) and moderate in the SCD research (Tau‐U = 0.578). Implementation and methodological characteristics were described, and the nature of the comparison conditions and dependent variable were identified as potential moderators. A significant sample of research represented a range of participant samples, implementation characteristics, instructional practices, and methodological attributes. These results suggest that experimental spelling approaches are generally a modest improvement on existing approaches and that little research has investigated the effectiveness of some best practices, including practices that support individualization of spelling instruction.","PeriodicalId":48182,"journal":{"name":"Psychology in the Schools","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology in the Schools","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23223","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is important for students to develop spelling skills, and spelling skills have been found to benefit the development of reading and writing skills. Past reviews and meta‐analyses supported the effectiveness of spelling instruction at improving a variety of academic outcomes including spelling, reading, and writing. This review and meta‐analysis contributes to this research and extends the current research on the impact of implementation characteristics on effectiveness. This review and meta‐analysis included 81 studies (43 group design and 38 single‐case design [SCD]). The meta‐analysis indicated an average effect of spelling instruction and intervention that was small in the group design research (g = 0.319) and moderate in the SCD research (Tau‐U = 0.578). Implementation and methodological characteristics were described, and the nature of the comparison conditions and dependent variable were identified as potential moderators. A significant sample of research represented a range of participant samples, implementation characteristics, instructional practices, and methodological attributes. These results suggest that experimental spelling approaches are generally a modest improvement on existing approaches and that little research has investigated the effectiveness of some best practices, including practices that support individualization of spelling instruction.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对拼写教学和干预的实施和有效性进行系统回顾和荟萃分析

培养学生的拼写技能非常重要，而且拼写技能被认为有利于阅读和写作技能的发展。过去的综述和荟萃分析支持拼写教学在提高包括拼写、阅读和写作在内的各种学习成绩方面的有效性。本综述和荟萃分析为这项研究做出了贡献，并扩展了当前关于实施特点对有效性影响的研究。本综述和荟萃分析包括 81 项研究（43 项小组设计和 38 项单例设计 [SCD]）。荟萃分析表明，在小组设计研究中，拼写教学和干预的平均效果较小（g = 0.319），在单例设计研究中，拼写教学和干预的平均效果中等（Tau-U = 0.578）。对实施和方法特点进行了描述，并将比较条件和因变量的性质确定为潜在的调节因素。重要的研究样本代表了一系列参与者样本、实施特征、教学实践和方法属性。这些结果表明，实验性拼写教学法一般都是对现有教学法的适度改进，而对一些最佳教学法（包括支持拼写教学个性化的教学法）的有效性研究很少。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Psychology in the Schools PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

5.00%

发文量

200

期刊介绍： Psychology in the Schools, which is published eight times per year, is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to research, opinion, and practice. The journal welcomes theoretical and applied manuscripts, focusing on the issues confronting school psychologists, teachers, counselors, administrators, and other personnel workers in schools and colleges, public and private organizations. Preferences will be given to manuscripts that clearly describe implications for the practitioner in the schools.