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¶

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? Allocation to Nunes et al. stages was significantly related to allocation to representational levels, with phonological stages pairing with E1A and morphological stages with E1B, E2 and E3. → 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

Chi-squared test relating stage allocation to representational-level allocation in the 51-child sample was significant, but the authors flag "a number of empty cells"; the relationship is explored for descriptive purposes only, with anomalies such as six stage-5 children at E1B.

"A Chi-squared Goodness of Fit test proved to be significant: ² (N = 51, 12) = 39.91, p < .05 however there are a number of empty cells which should be mentioned"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Some children show multiple co-existing representational levels and within-domain inconsistency in applying the -ed rule — related
• Children's spelling justifications can be coded into RR-model representational levels, with E1 splitting into phonological (E1A) and morphological (E1B) sub-levels — related
• Spelling accuracy increases across Nunes et al. stages, with main steps from stage 1 to 2 and stage 3 to 5 — related
• Spelling production and recognition accuracy both increase as representational explicitness increases from E1A to E3 — related