Article published In:
Written Language & LiteracyVol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.129–146
But spell checker always corrects witch words eye misspelled
Spell checker use among good and poor spellers
The present study examined spell checker software for both spelling recognition and production among college students. Sixty-four participants identified and corrected spelling in a prewritten story and produced spelling by writing a story. Both were completed with or without spell checker access. Results demonstrated differences between the performance of good and poor spellers (as defined using a baseline spelling test). When compared to good spellers, poor spellers corrected a greater percentage of spelling errors with spell checker than without. Spell checker helped all participants produce fewer spelling errors, but not fewer homophone errors. Additionally, more often than good spellers, poor spellers reported placing less effort into spelling words correctly when using spell checker. These findings suggest that poor spellers may have a greater need for spell checker than good spellers, and may be at a greater risk for relying on the software as the only step in the proofreading process.
Article outline
- Method
- Participants
- Materials
- Baseline Spelling Test
- Questionnaire
- Pre-written short story (Recognition activity)
- Picture prompt (Production activity)
- Design
- General procedure
- Results
- Self-report of spelling behavior
- Recognition activity
- Production activity
- Discussion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
This article is currently available as a sample article.
References (20)
Anderson-Inman, L., & Knox-Quinn, C. (1996). Spell checking strategies successful students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 391, 500–503. Retrieved from [URL]
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 631, 69–93. 
Behrns, I., Hartelius, L., & Wengelin, A. (2009). Aphasia and computerized writing aid supported treatment. Aphasiology, 231, 1276–1294.
Bosman, Anna M. T., van Huygevoort, M., Bakker, Joep T. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Learning to spell in second grade using the spelling checker. Written & Language Literacy, 101, 163–183.
Burke, D. M., Mackay, D. G., Worthley, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 301, 542–579.
Dobrin, D. N. (1990). A limitation on the use of computers in composition. In D. H. Holdstein & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing: Theory, research, practice (pp. 40–57). New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Figueredo, L., & Varnhagen, C. K. (2005). Didn’t you run the spell checker? Effects of type of spelling error and use of a spell checker on perceptions of the author. Reading Psychology, 261, 441–448.
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Galletta, D. F., Durcikova, A., Everard, A., & Brian, M. J. (2005). Does spell checking software need a warning label? Communications of the ACM, 48(7), 82–86.
Gupta, R. (1998). Can spelling checkers help the novice writer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 291, 255–266.
Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: insights from connectionist models. Psychological review, 106(3), 491.
Hult, C. (1985, March). A study of the effects of word processing on the correctness of student writing. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, MN.
Kreiner, D. S., Schnakenberg, S. D., Green, A. G., Costello, M. J., & McClin, A. F. (2002). Effects of spelling errors on the perception of writers. Journal of General Psychology, 1291, 5–17.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. B., & DeLaPaz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. The Journal of Special Education, 301, 35–57.
MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Mackay, D. G., & Burke, D. M. (1990). Cognition and aging: A theory of new learning and the use of old connections. In Thomas M. Hess (Eds.), Aging and Cognition: Knowledge Organization and Utilization (pp. 213–263). North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Margolin, S. and Abrams, L. (2007). Individual differences in young and older adults’ spelling: Do good spellers age better than poor speller? Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 141, 529–544.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological review, 103(1), 56.
Russell, C., (2009). “It sais I have a D how that be.” Journal of College Science Teaching, 391, 84–86. Retrieved from [URL]
Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., & Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological review, 97(4), 488.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Downs, Brody, Tyler French, Katherine Landau Wright, Maria Soledad Pera, Casey Kennington & Jerry Alan Fails
2019. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ► pp. 568 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.