Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relative effectiveness of learning options in multimedia computer-based fifth-grade spelling instruction

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study examined the effectiveness of learning options in two researcher-designed interactive multimedia instructional spelling programs, one offering predominantly behaviorist-visual learning options of the type employed by many current commercial spelling instructional programs and one offering predominantly cognitivist-phonological learning options of the type recommended by spelling research. The pretest-posttest control group study lasted one school month with students working each day for 10 minutes with their assigned computer program. Although both treatment groups demonstrated significant increases in spelling ability, there was no significant difference in adjusted posttest performance between the two groups. Examination of the influence of individual learning options in the two programs demonstrated that Spot It, a behaviorist-visual option, and Word Crunch, a cognitivist-phonological option, appear to account for most of the power in their treatments. The authors discuss how clusters of learning options affect performance and consider possible explanations for differences in relative effectiveness among learning options.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarntzen, D. (1993). Audio in courseware: Design knowledge issues.Educational and Training Technology International, 30, 354–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allred, R. (1984). Comparison of proofreading-type standardized spelling tests and written spelling test scores.Journal of Educational Research, 77, 298–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andre, T., & Phye, G. (1986). Cognition, learning, and education. In G. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.),Cognitive classroom learning: Understanding, thinking, and problem solving (pp. 1–19). San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayer, F. (1945).A study of high-school spelling vocabulary. Austin, TX: Steck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balajthy, E. (1986). Using microcomputers to teach spelling.Reading Teacher, 39, 438–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, R.W. (1980). Visual and phonological strategies in reading and spelling. In U. Frith (Ed.),Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 195–213). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartch, J. (1992). An alternative to spelling: An integrated approach.Language Arts, 69, 404–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betts, E.A. (1949).Second spelling vocabulary study: Grade placement of words in eight recent spellers. New York: American.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehler, R. & Snowman, J. (1982).Psychology applied to teaching (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, K., & Peskowitz, N.B. (1990). Metacognition in spelling: Using writing and reading to self-check spellings.Elementary School Journal, 91, 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, P. (1988).Using type right. Cincinnati, OH: North Light.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates, W.M. (1988). Putting student spelling devils out of your misery in three to ten minutes a day.Clearing House, 62, 101–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates, W.M. (1989). Research findings applied to software design. Computerized instructional spelling programs.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • ChanLin, L., Okey, J.R., & Reinking, D. (1992). Computer graphics: Implications for instructional design. InEmpowering people through technology—Proceedings of the international conference of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems (pp. 306–320). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 762)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crozer, N. (1994).Computer-based spelling instruction. Woodland Hills, CA: Los Angeles Pierce College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 790)

    Google Scholar 

  • Devall, Y. (1984). Using the computer to strengthen spelling.Computing Teacher, 12(2), 19–20, 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobie, A.B. (1989).Strategies for teaching spelling. Seattle, WA: Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304 692)

  • Ehri, L. (1980). The development of orthographic images. In U. Frith (Ed.),Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 311–330). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, G. (1976).Statistical analysis in psychology and education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimmons, R.J., & Loomer, B.M. (1978).Spelling: Learning and instruction. Des Moines, IA: Iowa State Department of Public Instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 176 285)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. (1985).The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garmston, R., & Zimmerman, D. (1987).Beyond recipe: Leading edges for teaching spelling. (No publisher given.) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 071)

  • Gettinger, M., Bryant, N.D., & Fayne, H.R. (1982). Designing spelling instruction for learning-disabled children: An emphasis on unit size, distributed practice, and training for transfer.Journal of Special Education, 16, 439–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodling, S.C. (1996). An empirical investigation of the effectiveness of learning options in two interactive multimedia spelling programs.Dissertation Abstracts International. (University Microfilms No. 9611121)

  • Graham, S. (1983). Effective spelling instruction.Elementary School Journal, 83, 560–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guza, D.S., & McLaughlin, T.F. (1987). A comparison of daily and weekly testing on student spelling performance.Journal of Educational Research, 80, 373–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., & Peck, K. (1988).The design, development, and evaluation of instructional software. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildreth, G. (1955).Teaching spelling: A guide to basic principles and practices. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillerich, R. (1981).Spelling: An element in written expression. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillerich, R. (1982). Spelling: What can be diagnosed.Elementary School Journal, 83, 138–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, T. (1947). The effect of the corrected test on learning to spell.Elementary School Journal, 47, 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Guber, A.M. (1972). The way out of the spelling labyrinth.Elementary English, 49, 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., & Hannum, W.J. (1987). Research-based principles for designing computer software.Educational Technology, 27(12), 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., Nagel, C.V., & Lovett, M. (1994).Study strategies: A formula for exceptional outcomes in the mainstream. Denver, CO: Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 461)

  • Lucas, L. (1991). Visually designing the computer-learner interface.Educational Technology, 31(7), 56–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan/McGraw-Hill (1993).Writer's workshop: Handbook for reading/language arts teachers. New York, NY: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzio, F. (1987).Spelling. Salem, OR: Oregon State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284 264)

    Google Scholar 

  • Milheim, W.D., & Lavix, C. (1992). Screen design for computer-based training and interactive video: Practical suggestions and overall guidelines.Performance and Instruction, 31, 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D., Nelson, L., & Perney, J. (1986). Exploring the concept of spelling instructional level through the analysis of error-types.Elementary School Journal, 87, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. (1989). Something borrowed, something new: Teaching implications of developmental spelling research.Reading Psychology, 10, 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M.W., Logan, J.W., & Lindsey, T.P. (1988). Orthographic awareness and gifted spellers: Early experiences and practices.Roeper Review, 10, 152–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oren, T., Salomon, G., Kreitman, K., & Don, A. (1990). Guides: Characterizing the interface. In B. Laurel (Ed.),The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 367–381). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormrod, J.E. (1986). A learning strategy for phonetic spellers.Academic Therapy, 22, 195–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, H. (1990). Media computers, motivation, and informal education: Gutenberg 2000? In S. Ambron & K. Hooper (Eds.).Learning with interactive multimedia (pp. 357–381). Redmond, WA: Microsoft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986).Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radebaugh, M.R. (1985). Children's perceptions of their spelling strategies.Reading Teacher, 38, 532–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L.P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieth, H., Axelrod, S., Anderson, R., Hathaway, F., Wood, K., & Fitzgerald, C. (1974). Influence of distributed practice and daily testing on weekly spelling tests.Journal of Educational Research, 68, 73–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, H.A. (1977).Reading & writing instruction in the United States: Historical trends. Washington, D.C.: National Institution of Education (DHEW). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmel, B.J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in courseware. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 183–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlagal, R.C. (1989). Constancy and change in spelling development.Reading Psychology, 10, 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlagal, R.C., & Schlagal, J.H. (1992). The integral character of spelling: Teaching strategies for multiple purposes.Language Arts, 69, 418–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwier, R., & Misanchuk, E. (1993).Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shires, N.L., & Olszak, L.P. (1992) What our screens should look like: An introduction to effective OPAC screens.RQ, 31, 357–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuman, R.B. (1990). Secondary school English teachers: Past, present, future. In G. Hawisher & A. Soter (Eds.),On literacy: Its teaching (pp. 36–49). Albany, NY: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.T. (1980). Linguistic information in spelling. In U. Frith (Ed.),Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 33–49). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storie, G., & Willems, A.L. (1988). Using spelling research effectively in the elementary school classroom.Reading Improvement, 25, 125–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svobodny, D., & Born, W. (1985).Early American spellers, 1775–1900: A catalog of the titles held by the educational research library. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264 602)

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, S. (1979). The circle game of English spelling: A reappraisal for teachers.Language Arts, 56, 789–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, S. (1993).Fast as the wind: Spelling for writing. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R.F., & Nagel, C.V. (1988).A creative visualization approach to teaching spelling and sight words. Jacksonville, FL: Synergetic Psychology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 137)

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N.D. (1993). Learning styles and metacognition.Reading Improvement, 30, 82–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varnhagen, C.K., Varnhagen, S., & Das, J.P. (1992). Analysis of cognitive processing and spelling errors of average ability and reading disabled children.Reading Psychology, 13, 217–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J.V. (1990).Color for the electronic age. New York: Watson-Guptill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership?Educational Technology, 23(3), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. (1986). A cognitive approach to teaching spelling.Exceptional Children, 53, 169–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yordy, L. (1991). Incorporating learning research into instructional program design.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 19, 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA

    Ward Mitchell Cates (Educational Technology Program Coordinator)

Authors
  1. Ward Mitchell Cates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan C. Goodling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article reports Dr. Susan C. Goodling's dissertation work under him.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cates, W.M., Goodling, S.C. The relative effectiveness of learning options in multimedia computer-based fifth-grade spelling instruction. ETR&D 45, 27–46 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299523

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299523

Keywords

Search

Navigation