The final-e rule was too complex for most writers, gaining a slender advantage in the university group that it more than lost in the academy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Sixteen distinct versions of the final-e rule came from the 20 collegians citing it in conscious use, and the rule's slender university advantage was more than lost in the academy group. → Cook 1917

Evidence¶

Cook 1917¶

Cook, W. A. (1917). Shall we teach spelling by rule? The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Shall+we+teach+spelling+by+rule%22

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Comparison of rule-adherence scores for the final-e word group across the university and academy samples; the author reports the rule was given in general outline without qualifications or as special applications only, and about a dozen academy students who had it nearly exact scored no better than the mean.

"By virtue of the higher average of those unconsciously using the rule, it obtained a slender advantage in the university, which it more than lost in the academy."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only the exceptionless ie-to-y rule demonstrated efficiency, with 13 of 16 collegians citing and applying it correctly — related
• No single rule was professed to be known by half the university students despite all having been taught the rules the previous winter — related
• The final-y rule showed a 3 per cent advantage in the university group but lost an equal amount with the academy students — related
• The ie-ei rule's slight advantage is questionable because most citers relied on mnemonics covering only one or two of the eleven words — related