-tictech message:
Mark--You make a valid argument for the use of spell check by students
who use computers to complete their DWA. I hope some of the tictech
subscribers forgive me as an aspiring PhD candidate, but I'd like to
forward to the list a study released today on this subject. Then, I'd
like to respond to your post with possible reasons why a decision to
prohibit use of this function might be made.
A study on this subject was announced today and picked up by CNN.com.
(See story @
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-PLS-PLS&id=2003031415
165001000002&dt=20030314151600&w=CNN&coview=)
Below is the press release:
=======================================================================
Do Spell Checkers Do More Harm than Good?
Just about everybody uses a computer spelling and grammar checker. Do
they truly help improve documents or are there any "side-effects?" A
recent study by University of Pittsburgh Katz Business School I.S.
professor Dennis Galletta demonstrated that spelling and grammar
checkers can diminish rather than enhance the skill level of writers.
According to Galletta, when computer spelling and grammar checkers were
turned off, people with high verbal scores on the SAT did better than
people with lower Verbal scores. However, when the spelling and grammar
checkers were turned on, the performance of each group dropped.
Says Galletta, "The spelling and grammar checkers made high-verbals
perform worse than usual, or just like low-verbals."
Galletta's research examined three types of errors; errors flagged
correctly by the computer, errors found by the computer that were not
truly errors; and errors missed by the computer because perhaps the word
is spelled right but used incorrectly, as in "to bare arms."
Participants were graded on their performance on finding each of the
three error types that were planted in a business letter. The goal of
each participant was to find all errors and take appropriate action
thereby leaving the document with zero errors.
When errors were correctly flagged, all participants performed well.
However, trouble began when the grammar and spelling-checking software
itself had problems, a common situation. Both groups did better without
the software when correct items were erroneously flagged as errors by
the software; they seemed to believe what the software was telling them
even though it was incorrect. They ruined perfectly good sentences.
It was even more interesting when errors were missed altogether by the
software. Without the software, the high-verbals performed about three
times better than the low-verbals. However, with the grammar and
spell-checking software, the performance of the high-verbal subjects
sank to equal that of the low-verbal subjects.
"This study shows that when the spelling and grammar checker were on,
both the low and high verbals got lazy, and ignored the fact that errors
were still present, despite what the checker told them," says Galletta.
Galletta stops short of recommending warning labels to be placed on
office software, but says "when spelling and grammar checkers make
obvious errors, it does us a favor because it puts us on alert that the
software is not infallible. The trouble is, we don't take those
infallibilies seriously enough."
For more information on Galletta's study, e-mail him at
Galletta@katz.pitt.edu
=======================================================================
I e-mailed him and he sent me the actual study in .pdf format. If
anyone would like a copy, send me an e-mail.
Now, what to make of this? First off, the study took place in a
university setting and, if it makes any difference, was conducted by a
business school prof. It would be inappropriate to generalize the
findings to an elementary setting. Second, it is just this kind of
study that policy makers read to make their own generalizations.
Mark said:
> I suggest that in 2003 this is totally unrealistic and is indeed
> punitive. My kids write better on a computer than on paper - almost
> all of them. Their writing on a computer is more complex, longer,
> better organized, and easier
> to read. They are more at home in front of a word processor than with
> a piece of paper. I have 14 computers in my classroom, and all my
> kids write on a computer daily. Spell check is ALWAYS ON. They become
> better spellers as a result of having it on. They LEARN from it.
> It's as accepted as an eraser on a pencil.
One issue that emerges when one compares the results from research with
those of a teacher's classroom observations is that results from a
teacher's classroom observations are extremely hard to replicate. For
example, you said, "They become better spellers as a result of having it
on. They LEARN from it." As you know Mark, I am aware of your experience
using computers in the classroom and do not question it here. You'll
forgive me for a second if I play devil's advocate. How do you really
know if your students have _learned_ from using spell check? Have you
conducted a study of your own? If so, what were the results?
The point is if I have to make a policy decision about the use of
computers when a student takes his/her DWA, I need information regarding
the fairness of the tool. In the absence of solid information, I must
rely on experience. If the DWA is used to determine students' ability
to compose prose, and one student has access to a spell checker and one
does not, that may not be fair. Fairness is germane because I may be
unsure about the spell check's effect on correct spelling. The use of
the dictionary may level the field because I can assume (due to
tradition) that _all_ students possess a skill set--dictionary
skills--but I cannot assume _all_ students can choose among word choices
in a dialogue box, an untraditional skill set (emphasis on "all"). In
summary, I want to make sure that computer-using students do not have an
advantage when taking the DWA.
Now, according to this study, it appears that the use of a spell-checker
does IN FACT level the playing field. Of course, more research in an
elementary school setting is needed to shed light on the spell check
issue. This study turns the table on conventional wisdom and raises the
question of whether the spell check function hinders rather than
advantages its users.
Great conversation! This is an issue that deserves attention because
knowledge about when and where, how and why computers may be superior to
paper and pencil challenges long-standing notions of student learning.
While the process is indeed slow, the marble chips are making louder
sounds when they fall to the ground. Keep it up the good work!
Kurt Sahl
University of Washington, College of Education
PhD candidate and father of 2 SPS students
bluesky@scn.org
-end tictech message. To join, leave, or visit
the message archive, go to tictech on the Web:
http://www.earthdaybags.org/tictech/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 15:02:47 PST