Behavior Modification of Children's Written Language

Kerr, Mary Margaret; Lambert, Deborah L.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-535613-8.50008-3

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As important as these studies are, they cannot provide all we would want from an operant account of spelling. Concern exclusively with the number of words spelled correctly on spelling tests provides little information about the details of how spelling performance changes through time (Kerr & Lambert, 1982;Nulman & Gerber, 1984). Further, concern only with contingencies that improve test performance gives no place to an analysis of the contingencies under which standard spellings emerge through a series of approximations.…”

Section: Standard Spelling As a Collateral Effect Of Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some contingencies of spelling

Lee

Sanderson

1987

Analysis Verbal Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents some speculation about the contingencies that might select standard spellings. The speculation is based on a new development in the teaching of spelling-the process writing approach, which lets standard spellings emerge collateral to a high frequency of reading and writing. The paper discusses this approach, contrasts it with behavior-analytic research on spelling, and suggests some new directions for this latter research based on a behavioral interpretation of the process writing approach to spelling.A radical behaviorist interested in spelling finds a vast literature. Some of this literature is behavior-analytic in orientation (e.g., Axelrod & Paluska, 1975;Axelrod, Whitaker & Hall, 1972;Broden, Beasley & Hall, 1978;Foxx & Jones, 1978;Gettinger, 1985 & Fitzgerald, 1974). But most of it is not (e.g., Anderson, 1985;Beers & Beers, 1981;Beers, Beers & Grant, 1977;Bolton & Snowball, 1985;Campbell, 1977;Chomsky, 1970Chomsky, , 1971Cramer, 1976;Cripps, 1979Cripps, , 1983Cripps, , 1985DiStefano & Hagerty, 1985;Gentry, 1982;Hauser, 1982;Henderson, 1980;Peters & Cripps, 1983;Rivalland, 1985). That is, most literature on spelling presents research and theory contributed by people working outside the framework of radical behaviorism.This large literature raises a question for radical behaviorists interested in extending the operant account of verbal behavior (Skinner, 1957). Spelling, as a dimension of writing, is an aspect of verbal behavior that an operant account must include. The question of interest is whether we have to start afresh in studying spelling or whether we can find useful information in the pre-existReprint requests should be sent to Vicki Lee,

show abstract

Section: Standard Spelling As a Collateral Effect Of Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some contingencies of spelling

Lee

Sanderson

1987

Analysis Verbal Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Functional response-class defmitions of handwriting have been neglected in research and practice (Kerr & Lambert, 1982;Peck, Askov, & Fairchild, 1980). However, curriculum experts in handwriting have anticipated the importance of a functional defmition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cursive Handwriting: Measurement of Function Rather Than Topography

Talbert-Johnson

Salva

Sweeney

et al. 1991

The Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The dependent variable in all of these studies was the number of words spelled correctly on spelling tests. Unlike the process writing approach, these studies provide little information about how spelling performance improves apart from changes in the percentage of words spelled correctly (Kerr & Lambert, 1982;Nulman & Gerber, 1984).…”

Section: Research On Spelling Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating spelling through generative instruction

Ross¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the components of generative instruction through the teaching of spelling rules. In Experiment 1, the effects of direct versus passive instruction and rate building versus equal-time practice were examined. Forty undergraduate students with below average spelling skills participated. Although there were better performances under passive instruction on some aspects of the posttests, and improved performance with rate-building practice on others, these results were not systematic and were contradicted by other results. The effects of rate building versus an equal amount of practice on the training and posttest application of spelling rules were examined in Experiment 2. Four undergraduate students with relatively high transcription rates participated in this experiment. Three of the four subjects had higher rates of correct letter sequences on an endurance test. These differences were correlated with differences in transcription rates from the beginning of the experiment, therefore, the differences in test performance are not conclusive. iii Acknowledgements Special thanks to Phil Chase, the chair for this dissertation, for his patience and guidance regarding this project. Thanks also to the members of my committee: Kent Johnson, Andy Lattal, Anne Watson, and Dave Schaal. Each of you played a role in my academic and professional development, and I am grateful for the edification. In particular, I will always hold my mentors from WVU in high regard, for all three of you "reinforced" my love of science in general, and behavior analysis in particular. At least four other individuals deserve thanks in regard to this project. First, thanks go out to Joe Layng for his tactful insistence on finishing this work. Thanks also to Sue Malmquist for her critical feedback and encouragement. I would like to thank Stan Cohen for his assistance with the statistical analyses in Experiment 1. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Jason Ross, who always can be counted on to provide reality checks, unconditional love, and understanding. Mean pretest scores on standardized spelling tests in Experiment 1. 31 Mean transcription rates for each group in Experiment 1. 32 Mean rate of correct letter sequences per min on final timings during training in Experiment 1. 33 Mean rate of correct letter sequences per min on the experimenterdesigned Rate Tests for each set of rules in Experiment 1. 35 Mean rate of errors per min on the experimenter-designed Rate Tests for each set of rules in Experiment 1. 36 Mean rate of correct letter sequences on the experimenter-designed Endurance Tests in Experiment 1. 37 Mean rate of errors on the experimenter-designed Endurance Tests in Experiment 1. 37 Mean percent correct on the experimenter-designed Application Tests for each set of rules in Experiment 1. 39 Mean rate of correct letter sequences per min per set on the experimenter-designed Rate pretest in Experiment 2. 45 Mean rate of errors per min per set on the experimenter-designed Rate pretest in Experiment 2. 46 Perform...

show abstract

Behavior Modification of Children's Written Language

Cited by 6 publications

References 37 publications

Some contingencies of spelling

Some contingencies of spelling

Cursive Handwriting: Measurement of Function Rather Than Topography

Investigating spelling through generative instruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About