No single rule was professed to be known by half the university students despite all having been taught the rules the previous winter¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? No one rule was professed to be known by half the university students, though over half had been taught all these rules and others only the winter before, and less than half of academy students on average would try to give rules worked out six weeks before. → 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
Summary of rule recall across both samples; the author reports students' own testimony that rules had grown vague or added to difficulty, that four Subfreshman English students had lost almost all rules taught them, and that only ten of nearly 40 academy seniors ascribed any value to rules.
"no one rule was professed to be known by half the university students, though over half of them had all these rules, and other besides, only the winter before"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Syntax — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- 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 — 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
- Learners acquired untaught syntactic properties but failed to show sensitivity to agreement they had been explicitly taught and practiced — related
- Explicitly learned L2 rules can be automatized through systematic practice after a metalinguistic criterion is reached — related
- Applying skill theory to grammar conflates constructs: pedagogical rules are not what exists in learners' mental representation — related
- College students who recalled any spelling rule averaged 85 per cent on the whole test versus 81 per cent for those who recalled none — related
- Grapho-motor memory is stronger than visual-motor memory: 85.3 per cent of high school subjects showed greater grapho-motor recall, replicating Meyerhardt's college and university findings — related
- Over 25 per cent of college students cannot spell common words, and 50 per cent fail on words such as accommodate and rhythm — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
rule-recall-miserable-half-known |
title |
No single rule was professed to be known by half the university students despite all having been taught the rules the previous winter |
description |
No single rule was professed to be known by half the university students despite all having been taught the rules the previous winter |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
1917 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — cook-1917 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.