Spelling and grammar checkers: are they intrusive?

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...

What Can Screen Capture Reveal About Students’ Use of Software Tools When Undertaking a Paraphrasing Task?

“…The limited functionality and intrusive effect of MS spelling and grammar/style checkers have been critiqued by several authors (Vernon 2000), as have their ideological and pedagogical implications (McGee and Ericsson 2002), including their potential for foregrounding surface corrections over more meaningful revisions (Buck 2008). Against this are studies such as that by Figueredo and Varnhagen (2006), who found that use of these tools during the revision process increased the number and accuracy of surface corrections, while not impacting negatively on content revisions. 7 While recognising the limitations of built-in word-processing tools, we concur with scholars who advocate their place in the writing classroom (Potter and Fuller 2008), in one-toone writing tutorials (Buck 2008) and when giving written feedback on student drafts (Stapleton and Radia 2010).…”

“…However, the topic continues to be of interest to teachers of academic writing. The ongoing development of grammar/style and spelling checkers has prompted several scholars to revisit these tools and their pedagogic uses (Buck 2008, Figueredo and Varnhagen 2006, McGee and Ericsson 2002, Potter and Fuller 2008, Vernon 2000. Investigations which compare the processes of composing by hand or on a computer explore their respective effects on the cognitive process (Medimorec and Risko 2016), early writing outcomes (Wollscheid, Sjaastad and Tømte 2016), and the implications for time-constrained assessments (Hunsu 2015, Mogey and Fluck 2015, Whithaus, Harrison and Midyette 2008.…”

Comparison of the Effectiveness of StyleWriter and Microsoft Word Computer Software to Improve English Writing Skills

“…For example, Figueredo and Varnhagen (2006) conducted a study on the use of computer in teaching writing. By using computers, students were able to correct mistakes with the aid of spelling and grammar checkers.…”

Spelling: Processes and strategies in print and computer formats.

“…Because Varnhagen (2004, 2006) did not assess the students in this area, they could have missed an important element explaining the student's lack of vigilance while detecting errors. The detection of spelling errors, regardless of the format is generally difficult for spellers mainly because of their reduced attention to the task (Figueredo & Varnhagen, 2006;Longcamp et al, 2005). An alternate explanation is that by relying mostly on the visual features of a word to discriminate between misspellings and correct word spellings, participants seemingly process strings of letters without integrating other word qualities (phonological and orthographic codes).…”

“…It was understood that spelling recognition processes can be difficult, mainly in terms of the attentional resources required to process the word's meaning (Figueredo & Varnhagen, 2006;Rees & Russell, 1999) and not necessarily in regard to spelling abilities (i.e., orthographic knowledge). In this way, the influence of format on the spelling tasks became evident when the cognitive load increased, and when spellers switched working formats to conduct the tasks (i.e., from printing to keyboarding or from keyboarding to printing).…”