Access to spell check and editing tools without explicit instruction did not improve, and may have reduced, control students' error correction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Control students had the same access to spell check and editing tools, yet the number of errors they corrected decreased from pretest to posttest. → Woods-Groves et al. 2017

Evidence¶

Woods-Groves et al. 2017¶

Suzanne Woods-Groves, Youjia Hua, Jeremy W. Ford, Katelyn M. Neil. (2017). Efficacy of an Electronic Editing Strategy with College Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 422-436. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1160277

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive examination of control-group pre-/posttest responses in the randomized study; the authors report "the number of errors corrected actually decreased." No effect size or test statistic is printed for this observation.

"When the pre- and posttest responses of the control group were examined the number of errors corrected actually decreased."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• EDIT Strategy instruction significantly improves total editing errors corrected by college students with IDD at posttest — related
• Interviewed students valued idea generation and peer evaluation but reported difficulties with editing checklists and unhelpful peer feedback — related
• EDIT Strategy effects maintained at 5 weeks for total, spelling, punctuation, and substance errors — related