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

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 to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 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. 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. 3.

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

  4. 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. 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

  1. 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 

  2. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. 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 

  20. 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 

  21. 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 

  22. 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.

  23. 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 

  24. 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 

  25. 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 

  26. 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 

  27. 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 

  28. 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 

  29. 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 

  30. 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 

  31. 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.

  32. 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 

  33. 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 

  34. 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 

  35. 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 

  36. 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 

  37. 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 

  38. 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 

  39. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

  44. 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 

  45. 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 

  46. 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 

  47. 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 

  48. 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 

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

  50. 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 

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

  52. 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 

  53. 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 

  54. 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela C. Jones.

Appendices

Appendix A

ᅟ Materials included in experiments 1, 2, and 3

Appendix B

ᅟ ᅟ

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

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

Keywords

  • Spelling
  • Instruction
  • Retrieval practice
  • Testing effect
  • Emergent literacy