|
Introduction
A Specific Learning Disability (SpLD) in Reading presents as an unexpected
difficulty in acquiring a facility with written language that is, with
reading and writing. In this context it is accepted that spelling deficits
prove more intractable than reading deficits, that spelling levels of
children with a SpLD are typically below their reading levels and that
spelling problems remain even after the learner has apparently overcome
his/her reading difficulty. This paper discusses a piece of research conducted
by the author which investigates the notion that if students with a SpLD
are instructed in specific strategies for using a spelling checker that
this would not only help with spelling accuracy but might also further
improve spelling levels. It also discusses the premise that this facility
might encourage pupils to use a wider vocabulary in writing.
Spelling and the Child with a Specific Learning Disability
Progress in reading and spelling can be measured by an achievement ratio,
which charts progress over a year. For an average child this ratio is
expected to be 1.00, which represents an improvement of one year in one
year. For a child with SpLD Thomson (1984) recorded an average ratio of
0.27 for spelling. This represents an improvement of approximately 3 months
in a 12-month period. The worrying aspect of this is that the child can
become sucked into a circle of deficit and avoidance of written text and
the problem accumulates.
Spelling and Creative Writing
Students with a SpLD typically misspell up to 20% of the words they write
(McArthur 1987). Children with severe literacy difficulties often produce
stories that are almost impossible to decipher. Their writing is filled
with errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalisation and handwriting.
Their written work tends to be short, poorly organised and impoverished
in terms of ideas and vocabulary (Lerner, 1993).
Children with a SpLD have difficulty multi-tasking. They have difficulty
concentrating on different tasks simultaneously. The writing process involves
higher level and lower level skills. The higher skills include thinking,
remembering, prioritising, deciding, interpreting instructions, sequencing
ideas and considering audience. Lower-level skills include finding the
appropriate tools, control, letter-formation, sequencing of letters, words
and phrases, working from left to right, eye-hand co-ordination and spelling
(Singleton, 1994). For many the lower level skills of writing are automatic.
Mature writers do not have to think about forming letters or spelling
(with the exception of unusual spellings) or working from left to right.
This means they are free to concentrate on the higher skills such as sequencing
of thoughts. However for many children with a SpLD the lower level skills
of writing are not automatic processes and require conscious effort. These
skills make large demands on Short Term Memory capacity and so hinder
the processing of spelling skills and the higher-level writing skills.
It follows that the spelling levels of pupils with a SpLD will be weaker
within creative writing than in isolated spelling tests. Children with
a SpLD thus require not only basic spelling instruction but also concentrated
instruction on spelling in the context of their creative writing (Goulandris,
1985). The difficulty with this is that proofreading demands close attention
to the words written. Most children tend to reread their own work very
quickly and because they know what they intended to say they are unable
to find many spelling errors. It is also true that if the internal representation
of a word is faulty then the child is unlikely to notice a mis-spelling.
Information and Communication Technologies and Spelling
The lower level writing skills make large demands on short-term memory
capacity of learners with a SpLD and so hinder the processing of the higher
level skills. Using a word processor frees the student with a SpLD from
the bondage of many lower-level writing skills. As soon as a keyboard
is introduced letter formation and laterality problems are immediately
eradicated and there is no searching for pens and paper. Finding letters
on a keyboard demands recognition, not recall so skills of recognition
rather than recall are brought into use. It is much easier to recognise
something from a group rather than to recall what it looks like entirely
from memory. Recognition uses less memory capacity than recall and so
working memory is freed to allow the user to concentrate on spelling and
the higher level writing skills. It is generally accepted that spelling
improves markedly through the use of word processing (Underwood, 1994).
How true this is for the child with a SpLD is an issue awaiting research.
The Impact of using a Spelling Checker on Spelling
The word processor contains a built in spelling checker to compensate
for poor spelling. Essentially a spell checker is a dictionary so that
if user types in a word not contained in the dictionary the word is flagged
in some way and a list of similar words is presented to the writer from
which the required word can be selected. Spelling checkers hence convert
the writer’s task from producing the correct spelling to recognising
it from among a list of similar words.
As mentioned, students with a SpLD typically misspell up to 20% of the
words they write. (McArthur, 1987). By using a spelling checker it appears
that spelling accuracy increases in poor spellers. However in a review
of literature prior to embarking on the research only two empirical studies
examining this issue could be located. In a study of twenty-seven students
with Learning Disabilities McArthur (1996) found that the students corrected
37% of their errors using a spelling checker but only corrected 9% of
errors when left unaided. Dalton, Winbury and Morrocco (1990) had similar
findings observing spelling accuracies of 42% and 67% in two fourth graders
with Learning Disabilities when they used a spelling checker. However,
neither of the above studies comments on the stage of spelling development
that the students observed were at, on the type of error made or how the
spelling checker was used. Given these omissions as well as the lack of
documented research available it is impossible to comment on the use of
spelling checkers and spelling accuracy in the writing of children with
a SpLD.
Spelling checkers are unable to suggest a correct spelling for every
misspelled word because they do not use semantic and syntactic clues.
These limitations suggest that for the writer with bizarre spellings or
who uses unreasonable phonic alternatives using a spelling checker will
be ineffective. When the intended word was not suggested by the spelling
checker in the above studies the correction rate was quite low- 25% in
McArthur’s case. However, he does point out that while the students
in his study had substantial experience in using a spelling checker they
had had little instruction in specific strategies for using spelling checkers.
Other limitations of a spelling checker also pertain to the identification
of misspellings. A spelling checker will flag proper nouns and special
terms as errors and it will fail to flag misspelled words that are other
words correctly spelled. Other concerns are that children with a SpLD
may have difficulty in selecting a correct spelling from a list especially
if the words are visually similar (Thomas & Watkins, 1998). However
it is generally accepted that children who have a SpLD appear to have
less difficulty recognising a correct spelling from a list than in recalling
the spelling (Singleton, 1994).
Despite the lack of empirical research examining the issue of spelling
checkers it is reasonable to suggest that with instruction in strategies
for using the spelling checker the correction rate can be increased. It
is feasible that having been alerted to a misspelling the pupil could
analyse and manipulate the spelling and either correct it or make it a
closer approximation to the correct spelling so that the spelling checker
can correct it. It is also feasible to suggest that such continuous interaction
with spellings might have a positive impact on spelling development. It
would also appear that because the word processor actively draws the writer’s
attention to misspellings that it should be an effective proofreading
tool and that perhaps knowing that the spelling checker will automatically
highlight misspellings removes the worry of spellings from children with
SpLD. The child knows s/he can ‘fix’ his/her spellings before
letting the teacher see his/her work. Perhaps also the spelling checker
encourages the use of more expansive vocabulary. Hitherto these pupils
persisted with only those simple words they perceived they could spell
(Peters, 1985, Singleton, 1994). Because of the dearth of research available
these were the issues addressed in this piece of research.
The Research Study
The study was undertaken with the researcher’s class of eleven children,
all of whom had been clinically diagnosed as having a SpLD. It took place
in a special school catering exclusively for children with a SpLD between
December 1999 and June 2000. Prior to initiating the research the children’s
level of attainment in spelling and written vocabulary was assessed by
means of a graded spelling test and by analysis of hand-written samples
of creative writing. The instruction phase was conducted over a twenty-two
week period at the end of which the children’s levels of spelling
attainment and written vocabulary were reassessed to discover how they
had progressed.
Methods of Teaching and Learning
The instruction phase centred on two tasks, a dictation exercise and creative
writing. Both tasks involved use of a computer with a word processor and
a built-in spelling checker. The pupils were instructed individually in
a strategy to facilitate effective use of the spelling checker. The Process
Writing Approach (Graves, 1981) was used for creative writing and dictation
was based on the Alpha to Omega Programme (Hornsby and Shear, 1980).
Strategies for using the Spelling Checker
As the spelling checker is reasonably successful at identifying what constitutes
reasonable phonetic alternatives this strategy essentially involved manipulating
misspellings to produce more reasonable phonetic alternatives. Instruction
began with the child reading back to teacher exactly what s/he had written;
not what s/he thought s/he had written. The teacher then asked the pupil
to say the intended word. Where necessary the teacher also pronounced
the word clearly. The pupil was asked to segment the word into sounds
and again if the pupil had difficulty with this the teacher assisted.
The word was thus written by the child sound by sound. Analogy with known
words with similar spelling patterns was used wherever appropriate. When
complete if the red line remained the pupil right-clicked on the word
and selected the required word if it is presented. If the word was still
not presented the child’s effort was re-examined and further edited.
The amount of guidance offered by the teacher was discretionary, depending
on the pupil. The process continued until the word was correctly spelled.
If a spelling was beyond the level of the child the teacher provided the
spelling.
Instruction Phase
Each session was composed of a dictation exercise and a period of creative
writing. A dictation exercise consisted of the children writing and correcting
two sentences as outlined above. Each dictated sentence was specifically
geared to the child’s level of spelling development
The children wrote one story per week using the writing process approach.
Because the focus of the study was on spelling the children were allowed
to correct misspellings when they chose to. Once a child had become reasonably
independent at using the spelling checker the teacher commenced working
with the child at the redrafting process. This took the form of a conference
with each child where ways of improving the child’s writing were
discussed. A conference lasted between five and ten minutes and improvements
mainly consisted of restructuring sentences and using more sophisticated
vocabulary. Assistance with spelling was provided if necessary.
Research Findings
Strategy Instruction
Instruction began by asking the child to read aloud what s/he had written.
Initially, the children tended initially to ‘read’ what they
believed they had written and had to be asked to focus on the words on
the screen and to read them exactly. The children were always able to
read this text exactly and it was often the source of great amusement,
for example ‘I had a Sligo on my jaw.’ ‘We will never know
who bought the hore.’ The required word was then enunciated clearly
by the teacher. It was found that the strategy was more successful if
the teacher rather than the pupil enunciated the word. This in keeping
with research findings that have shown that children with a SpLD have
difficulty segmenting speech into phonemic units (Goswami and Bryant,
1990). The pupil then tackled the spelling sound by sound/syllable by
syllable, with teacher guidance where necessary. If on completion of this
effort the word was found to be incorrect the spelling checker was used.
If the required word was not listed by the spelling checker the procedure
was repeated. The spelling checker was hence directing the child’s
attention to the sequence of letters in the word. This process continued
until the word was correctly spelled. The children were in general extremely
focused on task and very persistent. They wanted the words used to be
spelled correctly and were willing to make all the necessary corrections
using word processing. The ‘red line’ forced these children
to look closely at their own effort and to analyse it in order to correct
it. The following are two examples of how the children were guided in
use of the strategy and one example of a child using the strategy independently.
Helen had the word ‘royal’ spelled as ‘rill’.
T. Read to me exactly what you have written.
J. ‘rill’
T. The word is ‘roy-al’. What is the first syllable you can
hear?
J. ‘o-y’.
T. Yes!
J. ‘r-o-y’
Helen writes ‘royl’.
A red line appears. She right-clicks and selects the word ‘royal’.
Patrick spelled the word ‘unconscious’ as ‘uncachest’.
As he discussed his work with the teacher he commented:
P. I couldn’t spell unconscious and it’s not there!
T. O.K. Can you read to me what you’ve written?
P. un- cach… Oh!
He deletes the word and writes ‘un-con-tion.’
A red line appears. He right-clicks on the word.
P. Still not there!
T. Read what you have written now!
P. Hmm! –tion
He changes the letter ‘n’ to ‘s’. He has now written
‘uncontios’ but the spelling checker still does not recognise
the word. Patrick says ‘shous’ aloud, changes the ‘t’
to ‘sh’, right clicks and selects the word ‘unconscious.’
Text Manipulations supported by the Spelling Checker
An interesting use of the spelling checker was to use it to generate an
unknown spelling. When the children were unsure of a spelling they typed
as much as they could and pressed the space bar or the first letter that
came to hand. This caused the red line to appear and they could then use
the spelling checker to get the correct spelling. For example, Brendan
was observed working as follows:
‘I was nervous and hungr’
He pauses. He does not know how to spell ‘hungry’. He presses
the space bar. The red line appears. He right-clicks and selects the word
‘hungry’.
It was also observed that all the children accepted blindly that a word
was spelled correctly if there was no red line underneath it. Even though
the children are aware that the spelling checker does not recognise Proper
nouns they also blindly accepted that their efforts were correct. Superquen
(Superquinn) and finagles (Finglas) were two examples noted.
Use of the Spelling Checker
The practice of using word processing to edit work by producing closer
and closer approximations of standard spellings in conjunction with a
spelling checker appears to be a highly effective way for children with
spelling difficulties to produce correct spellings. The severity of the
spelling error does not in itself appear to be a hindrance to this process
of spelling correction. The stage of spelling development also does not
in itself appear to play a part in the successful use of this editing
process as all the children with the exception of one child could reasonably
successfully edit their misspellings by the end of the study. However
the modalities used to spell appears to be a factor in the ease with which
pupils can learn to edit their spellings. Those children who favoured
the auditory channel or who used both auditory and visual channels to
spell had little difficulty with this editing process once they learnt
how to use it. This is because their efforts were generally phonic alternatives
and spelling checker is reasonably successful at recognising what constitutes
reasonable phonic alternatives. Those children who favoured the visual
channel for spelling made slower progress with this editing process. These
children had difficulty segmenting words for spelling purposes and also
the spelling checker is not as successful at recognising dysphonetic spellings.
More teacher intervention was hence needed with these students. It is
possible that severity of error was a factor in the rate of progress with
these children. The misspellings of some children would have been closer
approximations to the required words than those of others, with one girl
in particular having an exceptionally severe spelling problem. These children
can now edit their work reasonably independently while the child who makes
more severe spelling errors still cannot successfully edit her work independently.
Writing Accuracy
In terms of developing spelling accuracy in the children’s writing
the use of a spelling checker was a very effective tool and notable improvements
in spelling accuracy were recorded in all cases. Ten of the eleven children
can now produce coherent pieces of text. The remaining child while still
not producing coherent text has made a tangible improvement in writing
accuracy in that her misspellings have decreased from approximately half
to one-fifth of words written. However a recurring problem noted was that
the spelling checker failed to flag misspellings that were other correctly
spelled words. The pupils did not look for or correct any of these errors.
When proofreading text they read what they believed they had written rather
than what was on the screen. It appears that these children are unable
to focus on text written without teacher presence. This category of misspelling
is now the main cause of spelling inaccuracy in those children who had
moved away from the heavy reliance on phonics for spelling.
Spelling Development
Evidence regarding spelling development was inconclusive. Nine of the
eleven children recorded an improvement in spelling levels but it was
queried if electronic intervention was the cause of progress in two of
these cases. It appears that for children at the stage of spelling where
their spelling errors constitute reasonable phonic alternatives instruction
in a strategy for effective use of the spelling checker appears to be
a highly effective tool in developing their spelling ability. The spelling
ability of all children in this group improved significantly. The rate
of improvement was substantially greater than that which had occurred
in the preceding years. For the child at the transitional stage of spelling
the spelling checker appears to have had a similar impact on spelling
development. However as there was only one child in this group it is impossible
to establish definite conclusions. Also as there were only spelling records
available for this child since June 1999 his rate of progress cannot be
compared to former years. Hence while the spelling checker appears to
be an effective tool for this group there is not enough evidence to substantiate
the claim. Evidence regarding the children at the phonetic stage of spelling
is again inconclusive. Four of the children in this group made significant
progress and now use more mature phonic representations. This progress
was considered significant in that these children with one exception had
made negligible progress in spelling in the previous one and a half to
two and a half years. In the other child’s case it proved impossible
to establish if electronic intervention was a factor in his rate of progress.
The other two children in the group made no perceivable progress with
spelling and no reason was established for this.
For those children where spelling levels did improve it was suggested
that the sustained practice at editing misspellings resulted in an overall
improvement in spelling. It was thought that the continuous interaction
with text where the child had to look intently at their own efforts when
a misspelling occurred and had to analyse it in order to correct it helped
internalise spellings.
Vocabulary
The impact of the spelling checker on the quality of written language
of children with a SpLD was also inconclusive. Six of the children recorded
an improvement in the vocabulary used in that they were described as using
more age appropriate language while there was no observed difference in
the other five children. There was no obvious trend in vocabulary development
and it was not possible to establish reasons why some children improved
and others did not. According to the children themselves they ‘will
try to spell the hard words because the spell checker can help you!’
or ‘if you’re not sure if a spelling is right the spell check
will help’. When asked what she thought had improved about her writing
over the period one girl replied, ‘Now I can use hard spellings and
I don’t have to ask anyone for a spelling!’
The spelling of the more difficult vocabulary was supported by the spelling
checker. It was thought that the ease of revision that the word processor
allows and the use of a spelling checker offer a crutch to these children
in that it allows them to spell words that they otherwise would not be
able to spell. The word processor and the spelling checker seem to act
as an external aid to short-term-memory. Children with a SpLD may have
difficulty producing the correct sequence of letters in a spelling or
they may have difficulty correcting a spelling by remembering what it
looks like long enough to do so (Thompson, 1990). The word processor holds
a misspelling on screen and the spelling checker may identify and correct
it instantly. This removes the burden of having to remember what the word
looks like in order to correct it. In cases where misspellings cannot
be identified by the spelling checker the child’s attention is directed
by the spelling checker to the sequence of letters in the word. The child
can then physically manipulate the misspelling on screen until it is identified
or corrected. In these ways the spelling checker is acting as a compensatory
measure for poor short-term-memory. The pressure of having to produce
a correct spelling instantly on paper is hence removed.
Motivation and Self Esteem
Use of the spelling checker motivated the children to write and also enhanced
their self-esteem. The belief that their stories are much improved enhances
the self-esteem of these children. They no longer object to others reading
their stories because they believe the spellings are correct. “Before
it used to be real embarrassing if anyone read your writing because all
the spellings would be wrong and they’d be laughing. The children
were often observed leafing through their folders admiring their work.
The positive attention received from parents and the principal also served
to boost the children’s self-esteem.
Conclusion
The findings of this research were such to suggest that it is possible
that instructing pupils with a SpLD in strategies for effective usage
of a spelling checker may be a successful means of teaching spelling to
this group of learners. However the study group in this piece of research
was too small and the time frame was too short to establish definite conclusions.
It would also be advisable to introduce a control group composed of children
who do not have learning disabilities for comparison purposes.
The failure of the spelling checker to identify misspellings that are
real words was noted as a recurring problem. A means of addressing this
problem would be to provide a talkback facility. This would mean that
the text composed by the children would be read back to the children by
the computer. Misspellings that are real words or the omission of endings
could then be readily identified and corrected. Word processors with this
facility as well as support software with this facility are currently
available.
Finally, the findings of this research are such that the researcher considers
that the provision of a word processor for every child that has a SpLD
should be mandatory. This study clearly illustrated that bridge between
what these children can achieve with electronic writing and their potential
in writing has been substantially narrowed. After twenty-two weeks ten
of the eleven participants can produce coherent text. It is hence reasonable
to suggest in the light of all the evidence obtained that with sustained
practice electronic writing may allow these children to reach potential
and compete on an equal footing with their “normal” peers.
Bibliography
Dalton, B. and C. Morocco, 1990. “ If you could just push a Button:
Two Fourth Grade Boys with Learning Disabilities learn to use a Computer
Spelling Checker”. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 177-191.
Goswami, U, and P. Bryant, 1990. Phonological Skills and Learning to
Read, Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Goulandris, N., 1985. Extending the Written Language Skill of Children
with Specific Learning Difficulties-Supplementary Teaching Techniques,
in: Snowling, M. (ed). 1985. Children’s Written Language Difficulties,
Berkshire: The NFER-NELSON Publishing Company Ltd.
Graves, D., 1981. Writing: Teachers and Children at Work, London: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Hornsby, B. and F. Shear, 1990. Alpha to Omega, London: Heinmann Educational
Books
Lerner J., 1993. Learning Disabilities, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McArthur, C. and S. Graham, 1987. “Learning Disabled Students composing
under Three Methods of Text Production: Handwriting, Word Processing and
Dictation”. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-42.
Mc Arthur, C., S. Graham, J Haynes and S. DeLaPaz, 1996. “Spelling
Checkers and Students with Learning Disabilities: Performance Comparisons
and Impact on Spelling.” The Journal of Special Education, 30, 35-57.
Peters M., 1985. Spelling: Caught or Taught? A New Look, London: Routledge
and Keegan Paul.
Scheib, B. and C. Lilywhite, 1994. Keyboard Skills and Laptop Word Processing.
In: Singleton, C. (ed). 1994. Computers and Dyslexia, Hull: The Dyslexia
Resource Centre.
Singleton, C. (ed). 1994. Computers and Dyslexia, Hull: The Dyslexia
Resource Centre
Thomson, M. E. and W. Watkins, 1998. Dyslexia: A Teaching Handbook, London:
Whurr
Thomson, M. E., 1984. Developmental Dyslexia, London: Edward Arnold.
Thomson M. E., 1990. Developmental Dyslexia, London: Whurr Publishers
Ltd.
Underwood, J. (ed). 1994. Computer Based Learning: Potential into Practice,
London: D. Fulton Publishers.
|