This study investigated the effect of five proofreading conditions on the spelling performance of 12 college students with learning disabilities on a composition activity. The proofreading conditions investigated were handwriting with no additional assistance, handwriting with a conventional print dictionary, handwriting with a handheld spelling checker, word processing with no additional assistance, and word processing with an integrated spelling checker. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the results, with proofreading condition used as a within-participants factor. Except for handwriting alone, all of the techniques resulted in significant reductions in the number of spelling errors in the students' written work; however, none of the techniques enabled the students to produce compositions with a mean level of spelling accuracy comparable to that of their nondisabled peers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antonoff, M.Buyer's guide overview: A word processor for every taste. Personal Computing, 1989, 13(8), 112–116.
2.
Arms, V. M. (1984, January). A dyslexic can compose on a computer. Educational Technology, pp. 39–41.
3.
Behrmann, M. M. (1994). Assistive technology for students with mild academic handicaps. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 70–83.
4.
Beirne-Smith, M., & Deck, M. D. (1989). A survey of postsecondary programs for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 456–457.
5.
Blandford, B. J. (1991). Effects of a spelling proofreading strategy on the percentage of identified misspelled words and the corrected words in learning disabled children's compositions. Dissertation Abstracts International, A51/07.
6.
Dalke, C. (1993). Successful transitions from high school to college. In S. A. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 57–80). New York: Springer-Verlag.
7.
Dalton, B., Winbury, N., & Morocco, C."If you could just push a button": Two fourth grade learning disabled students learn to use a computer spelling checker. Journal of Special Education Technology, 1990, 10(4), p. 177–191.
8.
Deshler, D. D., Ferrell, W. R., & Kass, C. E.Error monitoring of schoolwork by learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978, 11(7), 10–23.
9.
Dunham, T. (1987). Learning disabled college writers project.Minneapolis: Minnesota University, Learning Disabled College Writers Project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 286 188)
10.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test—Revised.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
Educational Testing Service. (1989). Topics taken from the College Board English Composition Test.Princeton, NJ: Author.
12.
Flower, L. S., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16–53.
13.
Furness, E. L., & Boyd, G. A. (1959). 355 real spelling demons for college students. College English, 20, 294–295.
14.
Gajar, A. H. (1989). A computer analysis of written language variables and a comparison of compositions written by university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 125–130.
15.
Gajria, M., & Salend, S. J. (1995). Homework practices of students with and without learning disabilities: A comparison. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 291–296.
16.
Gajria, M., Salend, S. J., & Hemrick, M. A. (1994). Teacher acceptability of testing modifications for mainstreamed students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 236–243.
17.
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students' skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 133–152.
18.
Gregg, N., & Hoy, C. (1989). Coherence: The comprehension and production abilities of college writers who are normally achieving, learning disabled, and under-prepared. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 370–390.
19.
Hoffman, F. J., Sheldon, K. L., Minskoff, E. H., Snutter, S. W., Steidle, E. F., Baker, D. P., Bailey, M. B., & Echols, L. D. (1987). Needs of learning disabled adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 43–52.
20.
Hughes, C., Clark, K., & McNaughton, D. (1993, February). An analysis of the spelling errors produced by college students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Learning Disabilities Association, San Francisco.
21.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide range achievement test—Revised.Wilmington, DE: Jastak Assessment Systems.
22.
Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H (1989). Data analysis: A model-comparison approach.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
23.
Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
Leuenberger, J., & Morris, M.Analysis of spelling errors by learning disabled and normal college students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1990, 5(2), 103–118.
25.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. B., & DeLaPaz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 35–57.
26.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–73.
27.
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computers and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 16–28.
28.
Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (1985). Teaching students with learning problems (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
29.
Merriam-Webster. (1984). Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary.Springfield, MA: Author.
30.
Raforth, B. A., & Rubin, D. L. (1984). The impact of content and mechanics on judgments of writing quality. Written Communication, 1, 446–457.
31.
Rapp, L. C. (1988). Proofreading skills and writing proficiency: Error detection, editing accuracy, and linguistic competence. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 802)
32.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluation, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children's composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), Psychology of written language: A developmental and educational perspective (pp. 67–95). New York: Wiley.
33.
Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Nolan, S., Clark, F. L., Alley, G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1981). Error monitoring: A learning strategy for improving academic performance of LD adolescents (Tech. Rep. No. 32). Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
34.
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S.Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 1991, 12(4), 18–27.
35.
Shannon, T. R., & Polloway, E. A. (1993). Promoting error monitoring in middle school students with LD. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 160–164.
36.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76–103.
38.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised.San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
39.
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design.New York: McGraw-Hill.
