Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities

Performance comparisons and impact on spelling

Charles A. MacArthur, Stephen Graham, Jacqueline B. Haynes, Susan DeLaPaz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

57 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We conducted two studies to investigate the benefits and limitations of spelling checkers with students with learning disabilities (LD). Study 1 compared the performance of 10 common spelling checkers in suggesting correct spellings for 555 unique misspellings from the writing of 55 students with LD in Grades 5 through 8. Study 2 investigated the success of 27 students with LD from Grades 6 through 8 in correcting their spelling errors with and without a spelling checker. Results indicated that spelling checkers are helpful but also have significant limitations. Unaided, students in Study 2 corrected 9% of their errors; with the spelling checker, they corrected 37% of their errors. Spelling checkers failed to identify 26% and 37% of errors in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, because the errors were other words correctly spelled. On average, spelling checkers suggested the correct spelling for approximately 55% of the identified errors, although the spelling checkers in Study 1 varied widely in performance. When the correct suggestion was provided, students usually (82% of the time) were able to select the correct word. Implications for instruction and design of spelling checkers are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-57
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of Special Education
Volume30
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

performance comparison
Learning Disorders
learning disability
Students
student
school grade
performance
instruction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities : Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. / MacArthur, Charles A.; Graham, Stephen; Haynes, Jacqueline B.; DeLaPaz, Susan.

In: Journal of Special Education, Vol. 30, No. 1, 03.1996, p. 35-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

MacArthur, Charles A. ; Graham, Stephen ; Haynes, Jacqueline B. ; DeLaPaz, Susan. / Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities : Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. In: Journal of Special Education. 1996 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 35-57.
@article{03b5d4b375814e98b7a6a69e1a2f31d8,
title = "Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling",
abstract = "We conducted two studies to investigate the benefits and limitations of spelling checkers with students with learning disabilities (LD). Study 1 compared the performance of 10 common spelling checkers in suggesting correct spellings for 555 unique misspellings from the writing of 55 students with LD in Grades 5 through 8. Study 2 investigated the success of 27 students with LD from Grades 6 through 8 in correcting their spelling errors with and without a spelling checker. Results indicated that spelling checkers are helpful but also have significant limitations. Unaided, students in Study 2 corrected 9{\%} of their errors; with the spelling checker, they corrected 37{\%} of their errors. Spelling checkers failed to identify 26{\%} and 37{\%} of errors in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, because the errors were other words correctly spelled. On average, spelling checkers suggested the correct spelling for approximately 55{\%} of the identified errors, although the spelling checkers in Study 1 varied widely in performance. When the correct suggestion was provided, students usually (82{\%} of the time) were able to select the correct word. Implications for instruction and design of spelling checkers are discussed.",
author = "MacArthur, {Charles A.} and Stephen Graham and Haynes, {Jacqueline B.} and Susan DeLaPaz",
year = "1996",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "35--57",
journal = "Journal of Special Education",
issn = "0022-4669",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities

T2 - Performance comparisons and impact on spelling

AU - MacArthur, Charles A.

AU - Graham, Stephen

AU - Haynes, Jacqueline B.

AU - DeLaPaz, Susan

PY - 1996/3

Y1 - 1996/3

N2 - We conducted two studies to investigate the benefits and limitations of spelling checkers with students with learning disabilities (LD). Study 1 compared the performance of 10 common spelling checkers in suggesting correct spellings for 555 unique misspellings from the writing of 55 students with LD in Grades 5 through 8. Study 2 investigated the success of 27 students with LD from Grades 6 through 8 in correcting their spelling errors with and without a spelling checker. Results indicated that spelling checkers are helpful but also have significant limitations. Unaided, students in Study 2 corrected 9% of their errors; with the spelling checker, they corrected 37% of their errors. Spelling checkers failed to identify 26% and 37% of errors in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, because the errors were other words correctly spelled. On average, spelling checkers suggested the correct spelling for approximately 55% of the identified errors, although the spelling checkers in Study 1 varied widely in performance. When the correct suggestion was provided, students usually (82% of the time) were able to select the correct word. Implications for instruction and design of spelling checkers are discussed.

AB - We conducted two studies to investigate the benefits and limitations of spelling checkers with students with learning disabilities (LD). Study 1 compared the performance of 10 common spelling checkers in suggesting correct spellings for 555 unique misspellings from the writing of 55 students with LD in Grades 5 through 8. Study 2 investigated the success of 27 students with LD from Grades 6 through 8 in correcting their spelling errors with and without a spelling checker. Results indicated that spelling checkers are helpful but also have significant limitations. Unaided, students in Study 2 corrected 9% of their errors; with the spelling checker, they corrected 37% of their errors. Spelling checkers failed to identify 26% and 37% of errors in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, because the errors were other words correctly spelled. On average, spelling checkers suggested the correct spelling for approximately 55% of the identified errors, although the spelling checkers in Study 1 varied widely in performance. When the correct suggestion was provided, students usually (82% of the time) were able to select the correct word. Implications for instruction and design of spelling checkers are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030304131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030304131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 35

EP - 57

JO - Journal of Special Education

JF - Journal of Special Education

SN - 0022-4669

IS - 1

ER -