Currently, there is a practical demand and necessity for research on how English-as-a-second language (ESL) learners acquire literacy skills, such as spelling. One important issue of this research agenda is how ESL learners apply first-language knowledge to learning to spell in English. Twenty-seven studies were reviewed that investigated the influence of the first language on ESL learners' development of English spelling skill. Evidence was found for both positive and negative transfer of first-language knowledge and processes to ESL learners' English spelling. These results are in agreement with theoretical propositions about the interdependence between first-and second-language academic skills [e.g., Cummins, J. (]. The findings are discussed in relation to the ESL learner's first-language proficiency level and distance between first language and English. Comparisons are drawn between ESL learners' and English monolinguals' spelling development and suggestions for future research are provided.

No abstract

No abstract

Spelling and grammar checkers help to make surface errors more apparent; do they influence the way in which people revise the content of their writing? We investigated whether the presence of checkers distracts students from making content revisions. Twenty-five freshmen, 20 English majors and 20 graduate students revised two essays on a computer, one with the spelling and grammar checkers, and the other with a dictionary. These essays were unfamiliar to the students and rigged with content and surface errors. The checkers helped the participants to revise text for surface features but did not affect the students' other revisions. Our findings suggest that checkers are helpful yet do not inhibit students' ability to make content revisions.Writers revise text with different goals in mind (eg, proofreading the text for spelling errors, improving the text's coherence) (Fitzgerald, 1987), and researchers have found that writers typically organise these goals (Hayes & Flower, 1987). Efficient revision requires that these goals be managed. Thus, the ways in which writers organise their revisions are paramount to successful writing.According to Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver and Stratman (1986), writers manage their revisions by separating the revision process for content from the proofreading process for surface errors. Flower et al suggested that this practice of separating content from surface-error revision is necessary, because revising for content requires a complex active process, while parallel mental processing may be sufficient for simultaneously proofreading a text for multiple surface errors. Thus, revision researchers (eg, Hull, 1987) recommend imposing organisation on revisions. The belief is that, because revisions to the content of a text would alter the actual words in the text, it would not be effective to revise for surface features first, as these features may change as a result of content revisions. However, this organisational method may not be consistently used in practice. Factors such as the writer's priorities, imposing time limits and noticeable distractions (eg, a flagged spelling error by the spell checker) may alter the way in which writers manage their revisions.In this study, we investigated the following questions: (1) Do spelling and grammar checkers affect the ways in which students revise for content as well as surface features? and (2) Do students manage revisions differently when they have access to checkers as opposed to a dictionary? Research on revisionResearchers have investigated several aspects of the revision process. Butterfield, Hacker and Albertson (1996) reviewed research on revision and found that the adult writer's skill can affect both the quantity and the quality of revisions. For example, while topic knowledge is positively related to number of content revisions, audience knowledge is positively related to reader comprehension of the revised text.College students' content revisions are related to their writing experience. Hull (1987) found that college students who...

No abstract