But spell checker always corrects witch words eye misspelled

Author: Riano Adriana   Margolin Sara J.  

Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company

E-ISSN: 1570-6001|20|2|129-146

ISSN: 1387-6732

Source: Written Language & Literacy, Vol.20, Iss.2, 2018-01, pp. : 129-146

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

The present study examined spell checker software for both spelling recognition and production among college students. Sixty-four participants identified and corrected spelling in a prewritten story and produced spelling by writing a story. Both were completed with or without spell checker access. Results demonstrated differences between the performance of good and poor spellers (as defined using a baseline spelling test). When compared to good spellers, poor spellers corrected a greater percentage of spelling errors with spell checker than without. Spell checker helped all participants produce fewer spelling errors, but not fewer homophone errors. Additionally, more often than good spellers, poor spellers reported placing less effort into spelling words correctly when using spell checker. These findings suggest that poor spellers may have a greater need for spell checker than good spellers, and may be at a greater risk for relying on the software as the only step in the proofreading process.