Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Special Education
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MacArthur, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by DeLaPaz, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by MacArthur, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by DeLaPaz, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Spelling Checkers and Students with Learning Disabilities: Performance Comparisons and Impact on Spelling

Charles A. MacArthur

University of Delaware

Steve Graham

University of Maryland

Jacqueline B. Haynes

Intelligent Automation, Inc.

Susan DeLaPaz

University of Maryland

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.

The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 30, No. 1, 35-57 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/002246699603000103
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
A. A. Lange, G. Mulhern, and J. Wylie
Proofreading Using an Assistive Software Homophone Tool: Compensatory and Remedial Effects on the Literacy Skills of Students With Reading Difficulties
J Learn Disabil, July 1, 2009; 42(4): 322 - 335.
[Abstract] [PDF]