In immediate recall, an orderly (fixed spatial-temporal) procedure for spelling word groups produced fewer errors than a random procedure, by 9.4%¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? In immediate recall the orderly procedure was more efficient than the random procedure by 9.4% (33 vs. 40 errors across 104 word groups). → Arps 1917

Evidence¶

Arps 1917¶

Arps, G. P. (1917). Attitude as a determinant in spelling efficiency in immediate and delayed recall. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Arps+attitude+spelling+efficiency

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Observational study of one six-and-one-half-year-old learner spelling 104 word groups (54 orderly, 54 random; 808 words total) from Jones's Second Reader. In immediate restoration the orderly procedure produced 33 errors versus 40 for random, a 9.4% advantage described as "more efficient by 9.4% than the random procedure".

"In the case of immediate reproduction, the orderly procedure is more efficient by 9.4% than the random procedure;"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Delayed-recall errors greatly exceeded immediate-recall errors, more so under the orderly procedure (4.33 times) than the random procedure (2.6 times) — related
• In delayed recall, the random procedure reversed the pattern, exceeding the orderly procedure by 16.4% fewer errors — related
• Practice gains are greater for nonsense material (average final gain 28%) than for sense-material (average final gain 10%). — related