Invented spelling intervention programmes: Comparing explicit and implicit instructions

Q3 Social Sciences
Tiago Almeida, Ana Cristina Silva, J. Rosa
{"title":"Invented spelling intervention programmes: Comparing explicit and implicit instructions","authors":"Tiago Almeida, Ana Cristina Silva, J. Rosa","doi":"10.14417/ap.1848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two invented spelling intervention programs, one with explicit instruction of graph-phonetics matches and another based on questioning and reflection on the graph-phonetic correspondences (implicit instructions). Ninety pre-school children, whose invented spellings use conventional letters unconventionally to represent sounds, were allocated to three groups, two experimental and one control. All groups were equivalent in age, intelligence, letter knowledge, and phonological awareness. We manipulated the type of instructions (implicit vs. explicit) between the pre- and post-tests in two experimental groups where children participated in an intervention programme of invented spelling. Children who participated in the implicit intervention programme showed a significant improvement in the number of correct letters mobilized in their spelling and phonemic awareness compared with children of control and explicit instruction group. Children from explicit instruction group showed significant more improvements than the children from the control group. These results suggest that questioning and reflection applied to invented spelling programmes seems to enhance a more significant knowledge about the relations between the oral and written code.","PeriodicalId":38440,"journal":{"name":"Analise Psicologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analise Psicologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14417/ap.1848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two invented spelling intervention programs, one with explicit instruction of graph-phonetics matches and another based on questioning and reflection on the graph-phonetic correspondences (implicit instructions). Ninety pre-school children, whose invented spellings use conventional letters unconventionally to represent sounds, were allocated to three groups, two experimental and one control. All groups were equivalent in age, intelligence, letter knowledge, and phonological awareness. We manipulated the type of instructions (implicit vs. explicit) between the pre- and post-tests in two experimental groups where children participated in an intervention programme of invented spelling. Children who participated in the implicit intervention programme showed a significant improvement in the number of correct letters mobilized in their spelling and phonemic awareness compared with children of control and explicit instruction group. Children from explicit instruction group showed significant more improvements than the children from the control group. These results suggest that questioning and reflection applied to invented spelling programmes seems to enhance a more significant knowledge about the relations between the oral and written code.
发明的拼写干预程序:比较显性和隐性指令
本研究旨在比较两种发明的拼写干预程序的有效性,一种是图形语音匹配的显性指令,另一种是基于对图形语音对应关系的质疑和反思(隐性指令)。90名学龄前儿童被分为三组,两组是实验组,一组是对照组。所有组在年龄、智力、字母知识和语音意识方面都相当。我们在两个实验组中操纵了测试前和测试后的指令类型(内隐与外显),孩子们参加了一个发明拼写的干预计划。与对照组和外显教学组的儿童相比,参与内隐干预计划的儿童在拼写和音位意识方面的正确字母数量显著提高。显性教学组的儿童比对照组的儿童表现出更显著的改善。这些结果表明,将质疑和反思应用于发明的拼写程序似乎可以增强对口语和书面代码之间关系的更重要的了解。
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
Analise Psicologica
Analise Psicologica Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信