Do you need to be a good speller to be a good writer? The Oregon Department of Education doesn’t seem to think so:
On Wednesday, students across the state will start taking their standardized writing exams, and for the first time, those doing their essays online will get to use spell check.
For some students at East Portland’s Parkrose High School, using spell check on the state’s required writing exam makes a lot of sense.
“Nobody is a perfect speller. People have gone through school, they haven’t done so well at spelling and still turn out successful,” says junior Jerry Hunter, who points out that spell check is everywhere, even on cell phones. “It’s a good tool just to keep with you. I don’t think kids should be denied of that. It might even benefit us in the future.”
As an editor, I consider spell check to be one of the greatest technological advances since the pencil eraser. But I’m troubled by the idea that seems to be taking root that certain tools designed to aid cognitive abilities can be adequate substitutes for particular skill sets.
However, I don’t object to the use of calculators on advanced standardized tests. I recognize their utility in taking out the drudgery of doing basic calculations, freeing the student to focus on higher level processes. Is using spell check like using a calculator? How important is spelling as a skill related to writing anyway?
January 13th, 2011 | 9:39 am
“I don’t think kids should be denied of that.”
Good Lord.
January 13th, 2011 | 11:16 am
The best practice for good spelling is extensive reading. Words start to “look right” and grammar starts to “sound right” because of the repetition of reading the same words and phrases. I have no problem with spell check on a writing exam. The more important education question is, how much reading has been required? (And, how much of that reading stretched the student’s understanding of vocabulary and concept?) Lay the proper foundation and the question of spell check is immaterial. I highly doubt the public school system taught any kind of meaningful reading program.
January 13th, 2011 | 12:30 pm
Mr. Chesterton beat me to it. Spell-checking seems minimally problematic in view of the modern inability to construct a simple declarative sentence, never mind stringing them together in a clear, concise and cogent essay. Good Lord, indeed.
January 13th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
I agree with Kafbst. I’m much more interested in my children developing vocabulary and reading skills than spelling.
(In fact, we might have dropped spelling when we moved to homeschooling this past fall, except that my mother loves practicing spelling words via Skype with my son.)
I also think the analogy to a calculator is apt; they serve as aids, but can’t hide deficiencies in other areas.
January 13th, 2011 | 1:04 pm
Ode to the Spell Checker
OWED TWO THE SPELLING CHECKER
I have a spelling checker -
It came with my PC.
It plain lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.
Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it’s weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.
A checker is a bless sing,
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud.
An wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.
And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.
Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed to be a joule
The checker poured o’er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.
That’s why aye brake in two averse
By righting wants too pleas.
Sow now ewe sea why aye dew prays
Such soft wear for pea seas.
Source: http://aproposofnothing.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/you-cant-always-trust-spell-check/
January 13th, 2011 | 1:19 pm
Having taught mathematics in college for a few years now, I must say that if using spell checker is like using a calculator, then there will be more consequences than just an inability to spell. I have had students say they need a calculator for questions as simple as adding two fractions together, not hard fractions either, say, one half plus one third. Now, in certain cases, if speed is necessary, calculators can obviously be a benefit. But in this case, it was quite apparent that my student simply did not have the confidence to try to add the fractions by himself. I wish it were only an isolated incident, but it’s not. They are many other students who won’t come for help, but whose quizzes and exams I regularly grade, which testify to an inability to do simple arithmetic. To mention another instance, a student in office hours insisted that she needed a calculator to subtract something like 2 – (-3). It is my opinion that regular calculator usage from a young age has greatly decreased many student’s confidence in their own math skills.
A second, similar, point I would make is that, especially when used at a young age, technological aid tends to produce a reliance, which then tends to produce students who simply won’t or can’t do their work without the aid of their device. It’s like a crutch that they learn to “walk” with, but don’t really need. Throwing the crutch away hurts but needs to be done. For all who are genuinely able, the highest standards and toughest training ought to be sought.
January 13th, 2011 | 1:45 pm
The difference between a calculator and spell check is you must still know which calculations and formulas to use. Not so with spell check; it does all the work for you.
Although I guess you must still know whether to use their/there and the like, I suppose.
More to the point, good vigorous writing should not rely on too many words that might require spell check.
“Poor Hemingway. He’s never written a word that required the reader to consult a dictionary.” — Wm. Faulkner
“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.” — Ernest Hemingway
January 13th, 2011 | 1:57 pm
J. A. Roelfsema, excellent point. Some Marine officer candidates were recently kicked out of OCS for cheating on the land navigation test. They figured they’d always have GPS, so why learn to read a map and compass?
The military, wisely, insists that you learn basic land navigation skills without GPS. After all, our GPS satellites will probably be very high on an enemy’s target list if a major war erupts.
January 13th, 2011 | 2:33 pm
I have to agree with Ian’s sentiments. You can loose you’re mind pouring over the things student’s write, spell check does no thing to reign this in. According to spell check, there’s nothing wrong with the preceding sentence.
Regarding calculators, I see students with 44-Magnum graphing calculators every day. They don’t know how to graph with them (or use any of the advanced functionality like symbolic algebra). They use them as scientific calculators, and usually poorly. We used to think that calculators would level the playing field somehow, in reality the students who are proficient with their mathematics nowadays would have been fine without a calculator, and the ones who were lost in the old days would be more lost today.
January 13th, 2011 | 5:13 pm
I’m impressed by spelling bee champs and walking calculators, but these skills aren’t necessary foundations to good writing and problem solving. Since we are using tools other than stone tablets, quills and parchment with which to store our thoughts, I’m betting conventional spelling and grammar will be replaced eventually. The replacement may be a new set of rules, but could be something completely different as technology has an ever-increasing effect on how we communicate. Those in ivory towers are no longer the keepers of language—think of the millions of people creating a new way to communicate as they “text” on phones.
January 13th, 2011 | 5:46 pm
Nathan
Yes . . . stone tablets have been replaced; although headstones and monuments still generate a rather constant business. Quills and parchment (pen and ink and paper) not so yet. Spelling has always undergone change.
I exclude grammar because language has an innate structure that conveys thoughts and ideas, and grammar is as important as the words.
There are no “ivory towers.” There are, however, those who understand the critical importance language and grammar play in imparting knowledge. Medical/surgical journals, written in “text” or “tweet” might well be deadly. Laws which prevent you from being falsely accused or convicted are hardly “tweetereeze.” I am waiting for technology to replace an Aquinas or Luther, or Plato or Aristotle—it shall be a very long wait.
And Billy the Shakes would be nothing in text but one of those old guys in the ivory tower in Stratford-upon-Avon.
The instructions written on how to text or tweet are not written in text or tweet, because it would not only be gibberish to most, it would confuse the customer–especially the new customer.
Words have meanings, and grammar expands and directs those meanings so that they are comprehnsible. I wouldn’t want the pilot of my jet texting on approach anymore than I want the material he read and from which he learned to fly to be of that same nature.
Equating the learning of language and grammar and words with the often inane social contact tools will neither further good writing nor expand problem solving.
They will, however, provide a marketable need for both in the future.
January 13th, 2011 | 5:56 pm
Ian
That was hilarious!
January 13th, 2011 | 7:20 pm
Spell check does not do all the work for you. You still have to get close enough for spell check to recognize what you meant and then recognize the right selection yourself.
(Whether it’s a good idea is another matter.)
January 13th, 2011 | 9:54 pm
Spelling is nice, but other things are more worth the educational time. My wife is a mediocre speller but scored a 98 on the MAT, which at the time was tied for the test record. I’m a reasonably good speller, but find it only adds a bit to my communication.
There is a larger question of which foundational skills will actually be necessary going forward. There are scores of humorous anecdotes about the old guy coming out from the back of the shop and showing up the young whippersnappers when some newfangled equipment broke down, but those are a type of cultural sermon repeated as self-congratulation by older people (like me). We really don’t need that many people who know how to shoe a horse or set type.
January 13th, 2011 | 10:24 pm
Not being able to spell is kind of like playing a scale on an instrument “correctly,” but out of tune. Or maybe not with all the right notes. When playing a piece, it’s understandable that a note might be missed here and there, just like a writer may misspell a difficult word here and there, or write a phrase that’s a little off. But there is always some sort of standard which reflects mastery, and I’m not sure you can completely separate those levels of mastery from one another.
January 14th, 2011 | 4:58 am
For many years in the UK students have not lost marks for incorrect spelling (some trendy “educationalists” (aka “idiots”) deny that there is “correct” spelling). Even the most appalling spellers can score highly in exams. Some of these A* students come to earth with a bump when they go into business and find that employers and clients notice poor spelling. In my area of work (law), people assume that if you don’t take time and care to get spelling, punctuation and grammar right, you probably don’t take care to get the law right either.
January 14th, 2011 | 10:28 am
Bonnie – in a phonetic language, that would be true. English is imperfectly – quite imperfectly – phonetic, enough so that in ESL classes the reminder has to be given frequently that reliance on phonetics is risky.
There is some cultural marker to spelling well, as it suggests one had a traditional education and values precision in communication details. Or it might hint at some bragging: that one is used to writing in situations or for publications where such things are required. Adhering to spelling conventions, and even more, to conventions of grammar that are becoming obsolete, is additionally a way of expressing an attachment to tradition, and a subtle communication that the past should not be lightly discarded. Writing slows language change, and spelling convention slows it even more, allowing nonspecialist readers to access older material without help. Icelandic was written down and literacy has long been high there, so the average Icelander can read material from the 13th C (though the spelling has been updated). English-speakers can reach back only to the early 17th C – and were it not for the enormous eminence of Shakespeare and the KJV, even that would likely have gone out of reach.
Actually, Shakespeare and KJV are largely out of reach as well. Words have changed subtly in meaning, yet we believe we have understood because those words continue to be in use today. We think of “ghost” as a linear synonym for “spirit” these days, but at the time, the older suggestion of dual relationship guest/host was still in play. It is lost now, and even the primary meaning of “ghost” is so overpowering to a modern reader that we must make a mental translation, rather than actually “use” the word as if it were part of our natural vocabulary.
Well, there’s more to be said on that, but I’m pretty far off topic at this point.
January 14th, 2011 | 3:33 pm
I’ll chime in as a college English teacher whose students, by and large, don’t spell very well.
All else being equal, and within reasonable limits of error, spelling is not critical. There are many good writers and good thinkers who have, as they say, “issues” with spelling.
However, all is not equal.
The decline in reading is a major factor in the decline in spelling, as someone else noted. My students mis-spell words that ought to be extremely familiar — but because they don’t read, they don’t know what the word is supposed to look like.
The shift away from teaching phonics means that this generation, by and large, is incapable of sounding out words. When they see a large or unknown word, they tend to skip over it in their reading; when they try to use an unfamiliar word in writing, the spelling is not uncommonly so far off that the word is barely recognizable. The difference in error is significant. For instance, I don’t mind if I have a student mis-spell “psalm” as “salm.” However, I see students who will write the most bizarre versions, such as “pamel”, that contain some of the same letters, but in a random assortment. The result is that for a reader who doesn’t already know what the student is trying to say, the spelling errors can make the sentence *literally* incomprehensible.
Finally, I have noticed in my students that a lot of their spelling errors come from a lack of attention to detail. They are simply not accustomed to paying attention to things like spelling and punctuation; they will write sentences on homework assignments that lack capital letters and periods, for instance. When these things are called to their attention, they can fix them… but they have gotten used to getting away with not bothering to pay close attention. This general habit of inattention also affects their reading ability, as they tend to gloss over a passage and jump to a conclusion about what it’s probably about, rather than paying attention to what it actually does say.
This tendency can be corrected; even in a single semester, I noticed that my students’ rate of error declined substantially when I started marking off for careless errors rather than letting them pass by. (Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time and effort that could be spent helping them improve in another area… they can’t learn about good style, or subtleties of reading, until after they’ve learned to actually see the sentence and not just pass their eyes over it.) But what worries me is that so many, many students genuinely don’t think to pay attention to getting the details of anything right — so for me, bad spelling of a particular kind is a red flag for a more serious cultural problem.
January 24th, 2011 | 6:03 pm
Many words only have a possibility of being spelled correctly unless you frequently encounter them and get a feel for what’s right. If you don’t have a feel for that word, you usually won’t get it right.
For example, on a spelling test, one word was capillary. I had rarely seen the word before, and though it was quite obvious for much of the word, many people will mess up by trying capilary. You’ll often have to guess by writing it down until something feels right- and sometimes the wrong spelling feels correct. Take effervescent. I got that one wrong. In hindsight, I should have compared it to luminescent or scent, but I tried effervescant.
It’s almost like there’s many small rules in the English language- scant is a skant, while scent is the equivalent of sent. Effervescent has double fs and the aforementioned scent.
Equivalent is also a good example. Is it equivalent, equivelent, or equivilent? Unless you’ve frequently encountered it, it’s likely you’ll get it wrong.
Should there be a attempt to standardize the English spelling? As in, there’s set rules, and words don’t deviate from the rules. It would be difficult to implement, but the question is “Is it worth it?”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact