The RR model explains children's stubborn persistence with ineffective spelling strategies that the Overlapping Waves model could not account for¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Children's persistence with time-consuming backup strategies that do little to improve performance, which Rittle-Johnson and Siegler found difficult to explain, is accounted for as E1-level over-application of an abstracted theory. → 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

q1 · i? · associational · r1

Theoretical argument, not a new empirical test: the authors argue that stubborn use of failing strategies such as sounding out matches the E1 level's abstraction and over-application of a theory, and that the RR model "can account for this stubborn use of ineffective strategies in a way that Rittle-Johnson and Siegler (1999) could not".

"Rittle-Johnson and Siegler (1999) could not explain: "why children persist in using time-consuming backup strategies that initially do little to improve performance" (p. 345)"

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
• Self-explanation promotes transfer of general patterns but can reduce recall of details and cause overgeneralization — related