Some children show multiple co-existing representational levels and within-domain inconsistency in applying the -ed rule¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Six children appeared to show evidence of multiple levels and eleven E1A/E1B children produced some isolated Implicit-level responses, which the authors read as evidence of multiple representations co-existing. → Critten 2006

Evidence¶

Critten 2006¶

Critten, S., Pine, K., & Steffler, D. (2006). Spelling Development in Young Children: A Case of Representational-Redescription? Manuscript submitted for publication (Date of Submission: Thursday 3rd August 2006). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.207

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Observation from the coding process in experiment one: although every child had a predominant level, some showed multi-level or transitional patterns, and some were inconsistent across similar words, e.g. justifying -ed in opened but choosing calld for called.

"there were six children who appeared to show evidence of multi-levels and six children who seemed to be in transition between two levels (usually E1B and E2)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children's spelling justifications can be coded into RR-model representational levels, with E1 splitting into phonological (E1A) and morphological (E1B) sub-levels — related
• Nunes et al. spelling stages map onto RR representational levels: stage 2 with E1A, stage 3 with E1B, and stages 4-5 with E2 and E3 — related
• Spelling production and recognition accuracy both increase as representational explicitness increases from E1A to E3 — related