Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond the Rainbow: Retrieval Practice Leads to Better Spelling than does Rainbow Writing

  • Intervention Study
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In three experiments, we compared the effectiveness of rainbow writing and retrieval practice, two common methods of spelling instruction. In experiment 1 (n = 14), second graders completed 2 days of spelling practice, followed by spelling tests 1 day and 5 weeks later. A repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated that spelling accuracy for words trained with retrieval practice was higher than for words trained with rainbow writing on both tests (η p 2 = .49). In experiments 2 (second graders, n = 16) and 3 (first graders, n = 12), students completed 2 days of spelling practice followed by a spelling test 1 day later. Results replicated experiment 1; spelling accuracy was higher for words trained with retrieval practice compared with rainbow writing (η p 2 = .42 and .64, respectively). Furthermore, students endorsed both liking and learning from retrieval practice at least as much as (and sometimes more than) rainbow writing. Results demonstrate that retrieval practice is a more useful (and as engaging) training method than is rainbow writing and extend the well-established testing effect to beginning spellers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our data indicate that more correct spellings of a word were produced with rainbow writing (M = 7.4) than with retrieval practice (M = 3).

  2. Only one student failed to practice all items with rainbow writing; two items were unpracticed. On average, each item was practiced nine times. Thus, observed differences in accuracy for retrieval practice and rainbow writing on the final test are unlikely due to insufficient practice with all items in the rainbow writing condition.

  3. Two students’ retrieval practice data were misplaced. Thus, analyses include data from 14 students.

  4. Using the first round of retrieval practice in experiment 1 as a baseline measure, performance was relatively high (M = 66.9%, SD = 22), similar to experiment 2.

  5. Similar to experiment 2, only one student failed to practice all items with rainbow writing; two items were unpracticed. On average, items were practiced with rainbow writing 6.5 times. Thus, the nearly threefold gain produced by retrieval practice over rainbow writing is unlikely due to a failure in practicing items during rainbow writing.

References

  • Alber, S. R., & Walshe, S. E. (2004). When to self-correct spelling words: a systematic replication. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, S., & Bond, R. (2009). Lexical expertise and reading skill: bottom-up and top-down processing of lexical ambiguity. Reading and Writing, 22, 687–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, W., & Bouffler, C. (1987). Spell by writing. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Byrd, K., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition along and together: implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boushey, & Moser. (2006). The daily 5: fostering literacy independence in the elementary grades. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boushey, & Moser. (2014). The daily 5: fostering literacy independence in the elementary grades (2nd ed.). Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwmeester, S., & Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L. (2011). Why do some children benefit more from testing than others? Gist trace processing to explain the testing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (1990). A review of recent research on spelling. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 365–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronnell, B., & Humes, A. (1980). Elementary spelling: what’s really taught. The Elementary School Journal, 81, 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. G., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. (1987). Learning to read and spell words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Nolan, D., & Singleton, J. (2007). Expanding retrieval practice: an effective aid to preschool children’s learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 991–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6 (Serial No. 40).

  • Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: a review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: a meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction makes students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703–1743. doi:10.1007/s11145-01409517-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., et al. (2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades: a national survey of instructional practices and adaptations. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 796–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896. doi:10.1037/a0029185.

  • Grolnik, W. S., & Ryan, R. N. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: an experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grskovic, J. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving the spelling performance of students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., & Hollingshead, A. (1990). Reading student essays may be hazardous to your spelling: effects of reading incorrectly and correctly spelled words. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 345–358. doi:10.1037/h0084259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: a longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, S. S. (2014a). Retrieval-based learning: the need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 198–206. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014b). Retrieval-based learning: an episodic context account. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 61, 237–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, C., & Gillon, G. T. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading. Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipko-Speed, A., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Does testing with feedback help grade-school children learn key concepts in science? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.

  • Lipowski, S. L., Pyc, M. A., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2014). Establishing and explaining the testing effect in free recall for young children. Developmental Psychology, 50, 994–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. B., & De La Paz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: performance comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30, 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuffin, M. E., Martz, S. A., & Heron, T. E. (1997). The effects of self-correction versus traditional spelling on the spelling performance and maintenance of third grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, B., & Kirk, C. (2014). Theoretical beliefs and instructional practices used for teaching spelling in elementary classrooms. Reading and Writing, 27, 535–554. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9457-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeish, J., Heron, T. E., & Okyere, B. (1992). Effects of self-correction on the spelling performance of junior high students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 743–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okyere, B. A., Heron, T. E., & Goddard, Y. (1997). Effects of self-correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of the written spelling of elementary school children. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 896–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. doi:10.1080/10888430701530730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2000). Linguistic difficulties in language and reading development constrain skilled adult reading. Memory & Cognition, 28, 739–745.

  • Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Why is test-restudy practice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 737–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, A. L., Haring, S. H., Levin, J. R., Patall, E. A., & Robinson, D. H. (2013). Models of not-so-good behavior: yet another way to squeeze causality and recommendations for practice out of correlational data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 241–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 15, 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests to improve long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 382–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, T., & Thomas, A. (2002). Improving the spelling of high frequency words in daily writing through the use of multiple intelligence centers.

  • Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiple-choice, and hybrid tests. Memory, 22, 784–802. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.831454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. (2011). A kindergarten writing center in action. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/2011/12/kindergarten-writing-center-action.

  • Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2014a). Lexical quality and eye movements: individual differences in the perceptual span of skilled adult readers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 703–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. (2014b). Parafoveal lexical activation depends on skilled reading proficiency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi:10.1037/xlm0000039. Advance online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagstaff, J. (2009) Using name walls to teach reading and writing (Scholastic Teaching Resources). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Available from: http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/collateral_resources/pdf/83/9780545269483.pdf.

  • Wilde, S. (1990). Spelling textbooks: a critical review. Linguistics and Education, 2, 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, C. L., Gardner, R., Weber, K., & Bullara, D. (1996). Using self-correction to improve the spelling performance of low-achieving third graders. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [3RO1DC011 492]. We would like to thank Melissa Bishop, Dasom Kim, Soo Lee, and Brenda Wu for assistance with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Science, John Carroll University, 1 John Carroll Blvd, University Heights, OH, 44118, USA

    Angela C. Jones

  2. Pearson and Department of Psychology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Liane Wardlow

  3. Department of Psychology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Steven C. Pan, Cristina Zepeda, Gail D. Heyman & Timothy C. Rickard

  4. Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

    John Dunlosky

Authors
  1. Angela C. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liane Wardlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven C. Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cristina Zepeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gail D. Heyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Dunlosky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Timothy C. Rickard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela C. Jones.

Appendices

Appendix A

ᅟ Materials included in experiments 1, 2, and 3
Full size table

Appendix B

ᅟ ᅟ
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, A.C., Wardlow, L., Pan, S.C. et al. Beyond the Rainbow: Retrieval Practice Leads to Better Spelling than does Rainbow Writing. Educ Psychol Rev 28, 385–400 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9330-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9330-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation