Download EFFECTS OF PROOFREADING ON SPELLING

Journal of Reading Behavior
1992, Volume XXIV, No. 4
EFFECTS OF PROOFREADING ON SPELLING:
HOW READING MISSPELLED AND CORRECTLY SPELLED
WORDS AFFECTS SPELLING ACCURACY
John M. Bradley
University of Arizona
Priscilla Vacca King
Mammoth-San Manuel School District
ABSTRACT
The effects of proofreading on the spelling accuracy of fifth-grade students were
studied by having them read and detect errors in text containing misspelled words.
The treatment involved an error detection task requiring a decision as to whether
an underlined stimulus word embedded in a sentence was correctly spelled or
misspelled. Serving as their own controls, the students were exposed to three
spelling exposure frequency conditions during the proofreading treatment: (a) four
exposures to a misspelling, (b) two exposures to a misspelling and two exposures
to the correct spelling, and (c) four exposures to the correct spelling. The students
proofread two types of spelling words in terms of sound-spelling correspondence;
half were predictable and half were unpredictable. The major finding was that
exposure to correctly spelled words did improve spelling accuracy for immediate
and delayed posttests. Exposure to misspelled words did not significantly affect
the spelling accuracy of the sample as a whole, but the accuracy of a few outliers
was substantially impaired. Unpredictable words were found more difficult to spell
than predictable words. No interaction was found between spelling ability and
spelling accuracy improvement as the result of proofreading correctly spelled
words; poor spellers improved as much as average and good spellers.
Goodman (1984) has suggested that people read texts for a variety of purposes,
and that with the exception of some forms of ritualistic reading, all forms of reading
involve an attempt by the reader to make sense of the text. Proofreading is a form
of reading that is typically associated with either the revision process of writing or
spelling assessment and instruction. Although proofreading for spelling errors in a
413
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
414
. Journal of Reading Behavior
text is a special type of reading with a relatively specific purpose, it shares with
other forms of reading the necessity of text comprehension.
When proofreading is done as part of the writing revision process, the proofreader reads a preliminary draft of a text to identify and correct errors of spelling,
punctuation, and syntax so that the text may be amended into a final draft suitable
for the writer's intended audience (Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1983). Proofreading
may also be done as a part of formal spelling assessment and basal spelling instruction (Wilde, 1992).
The widespread use of standardized tests in state assessment programs has
pressured many teachers to prepare their students for assessment by teaching directly to the tests (Shepard, 1991). Because of the perceived necessity for this
preparation, the contents and formats of the tests can shape instruction (National
Commission on Testing and Public Policy, 1990). Since standardized achievement
tests typically assess spelling with error detection items, many teachers feel compelled to have their students engage in practice exercises identifying deliberately
misspelled words embedded in sentences or word lists (Smith, 1989; Wilde, 1992).
Test publishers also advise teachers to prepare their students for the assessment
process. For example, the teacher's guide for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills contains
the following suggestion: "Develop sensitivity to spelling errors. Give pupils practice in proofreading their own and other written work, lists of words, and printed
or typed words misspelled in context" (Hieronymus, Hoover, & Lindquist, 1988,
p. 55).
Students may also be required to engage in proofreading tasks as a part of
formal spelling instruction. A survey of five spelling programs [Basic Goals in
Spelling (Kottmeyer & Claus, 1980), HBJ Spelling (Madden & Carlson, 1963),
Macmillan Spelling Series (Smith, 1983), The World of Spelling (Thomas, Thomas,
& Lutkus, 1978), and Spelling (Valmont & Valmont, 1980)] indicated that proofreading activities required the detection of misspellings in both lists of words and
sentences. Wilde (1992) has also reported that most basal spelling programs include
proofreading exercises and has condemned their use because these exercises require
students to detect artificial misspellings, a visual memory task that Wilde contended
is likely to contribute to subsequent student spelling confusion.
Proofreading activities have also been found to be commonly used by special
education teachers as a part of their spelling instruction. A survey study by
Vallecorsa, Zigmond, and Henderson (1985) reported regular use of proofreading
activities by 74% of the special education teachers who responded.
Although there is a dearth of research on proofreading as a practice to improve
spelling accuracy, several studies have supported its usefulness as a means of
studying the reading process. Supramanian (1983) investigated proofreading as a
measure of reading ability with British primary-grade students. He had good and
poor readers read two passages of varying difficulty and circle embedded misspellings. Supramanian employed misspellings in his experimental proofreading task
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
415
that had been detected successfully by both the poor and good readers on a prior
proofreading-type spelling test. He found that the proofreading task differentiated
good and poor readers and concluded that " . . . proofreading ability is a function
of the degree of exposure to the correct forms of misspelled words" (Supramanian,
1983, p. 77). Niemi and Virjamo (1986) investigated differences in the reading of
function and content words by having Finnish university students circle misspelled
words embedded in an expository passage. The misspelled words differed from
their correct versions by the substitution of a single letter. The Finnish language
was used to make it possible to compare function and content words while simultaneously controlling word length and frequency, a phenomenon not possible in
English. Niemi and Virjamo found that misspellings were most difficult to detect
in short function words and long content words.
Research has also been conducted regarding the validity of a proofreading
format for formal spelling assessment. Because proofreading or error recognition
items are used in most standardized spelling tests (Shores & Yee, 1973), several
investigators have examined the relationship between multiple-choice proofreading
spelling tests and their dictation counterparts involving written spellings as responses. Allen and Ager (1965) found factor analytic evidence suggesting that
spelling ability is a unitary skill and reported high intercorrelations among four
methods of testing spelling, one of which was proofreading. Allred (1984), comparing a proofreading spelling test with a dictation spelling test, reported correlations
ranging from .63 to .85. He also found that the proofreading recognition test was
easier for younger students than the written dictation test, but that the difference
between students' abilities to recognize misspellings and produce correct spellings
decreased with age.
There are two commonly advocated applications of proofreading for instructional purposes; proofreading as part of an editing process to improve writing, or
proofreading to scan for misspellings as a means of increasing spelling knowledge.
Personke and Knight (1967) observed that spelling errors in written compositions
may be left uncorrected by students because they lack motivation to proofread their
work, lack time to make corrections, and lack skills needed to locate correct spellings in the dictionary. They found that some students can reduce the incidence of
spelling error in written work if given instruction on proofreading, and they suggested that it may be helpful for students to practice proofreading skills.
Despite the evidence that editing for spelling accuracy is a useful part of the
writing process, effective writing also depends in part on prior knowledge of correct
spellings. Prior spelling knowledge allows the writing process to continue without
interruptions to ascertain correct spellings. To that end, spelling is taught as an
independent subject, and proofreading exercises are often presented as a means of
increasing spelling knowledge.
Although proofreading has been ignored in some scholarly reviews of spelling
instruction practices, it has been favorably regarded when considered. Graham and
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
416
Journal of Reading Behavior
Miller (1979) listed proofreading among spelling instruction practices supported by
research, and recommended specific activities such as having students identify
incorrect spellings in short lists of words and asking students to search for misspellings in compositions. The authors checked the articles cited by Graham and Miller
in support of their proofreading suggestions and found that the research-based
papers tended to be methodologically unsound, whereas the others were wisdom
pieces.
Some research has suggested that proofreading activities may not increase
spelling knowledge and may even interfere with accurate spelling. Caisley (1982)
incorporated weekly proofreading exercises into the spelling curriculum of students
in Grades K through 7 in one school in Canada. She found that students in the
proofreading program did no better on a recognition spelling test than control group
students, whereas their performance was worse on a dictated written spelling test.
However, Caisley reported that her findings were less conclusive for the poorer
spellers in her sample who improved their scores somewhat on the recognition
spelling test. Jacoby (1983) used an error detection task to study recall processes
and observed that spelling response time was speeded or slowed depending on
whether a recently read word was spelled correctly or incorrectly. He also found
that viewing a correctly spelled word increased the probability of a subsequent
correct spelling of the word on a posttest, whereas viewing an incorrectly spelled
word increased the probability of a misspelling.
Brown (1988) conducted three investigations of the effects of exposure to
misspellings on subsequent spelling performance of undergraduate college students.
Brown limited the data analysis in his three studies to decrement scores only; he
did not investigate the possibility of spelling improvement related to exposure to
correct spellings. In the first study, Brown found that a treatment involving student
generated misspellings for a list of words spelled correctly on a pretest resulted in
an increased number of spelling errors on a posttesting of those words. In the
second study, Brown exposed his student participants to two different misspellings
for each word in a spelling list, had them rate how closely the misspellings resembled the correct versions, and then gave them either a dictated test or a proofreading
recognition test of the listed words. Brown found that exposure to presented misspellings adversely affected spelling accuracy on both types of spelling tests, and
that more errors were made on the recognition test. However, the treatment was
not found to interact with test type. In the third study, Brown failed to show that
exposure to repeated misspellings adversely affected subsequent spelling accuracy
on either a recognition test or a dictation test. Brown concluded that his findings
brought into question assessment and instruction practices that involve exposing
students to misspellings.
Three instructional situations typically involve student exposure to misspellings. First, students are exposed to misspelled words when they are required to
complete proofreading exercises designed to prepare them to take standardized
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
417
spelling tests or as part of their basal spelling program. Second, students are also
exposed to misspellings due to classroom practices that stem from research regarding invented spelling (Chomsky, 1971a, 1971b; Read, 1971, 1975). Proponents of
invented spelling suggest that a teacher's acceptance of a student's idiosyncratic
spellings will facilitate the development of the student's overall writing ability.
Invented spelling methodology has been suggested as an alternative to basal spelling
programs (Wilde, 1990). Third, students are exposed to self- or peer-generated
invented spellings (misspellings) as a result of the composition process. Wilde
(1992) suggested that students be encouraged to use spelling strategies that promote
greatest writing fluency. These student spelling strategies can involve the use of
placeholder words (a student's deliberate misspellings to facilitate uninterrupted
composition) and invented spellings (a student's own spellings stemming from
linguistic knowledge).
Calkins (1986) and Graves (1983) have also recommended practices that would
result in both peer- and self-generated misspellings. They have both advised teachers to encourage students to attend to content during preliminary draft efforts, while
putting off editing for spelling until they are ready to produce a final draft, if one
is desired. Calkins (1986) and Graves (1983) also have suggested that students help
each other with draft revision. Wilde (1992) has advised that teachers of beginning
writers require them to proofread and correct only a few of their invented spellings
during the final draft process, leaving the majority of their invented spellings uncorrected. Calkins (1986) and Wilde (1992) have also recommended that teachers
display their students' rough drafts containing invented spellings as a sign of acceptance and pride.
The findings of Caisley (1982), Jacoby (1983), and Brown (1988) suggest that
exposure to misspelled words as part of a proofreading task can adversely affect
subsequent spelling accuracy. The following study was designed to investigate the
effects of proofreading on spelling accuracy. The major purpose of the study was
to investigate the effects of repeated exposures to misspelled words and correctly
spelled words as part of a proofreading task on spelling accuracy. The treatment
involved proofreading exercises that required students to decide whether underlined
stimulus words embedded in sentences were correctly spelled or misspelled. The
participants were elementary school children. Spelling accuracy, the dependent
variable, was measured with dictated tests consisting of the words used in the
proofreading treatment.
The study was designed to accomplish several ancillary purposes. An investigation was made of the effects of the proofreading treatment in terms of two types
of words (predictable and unpredictable sound/spelling correspondence) on spelling
accuracy. In addition, the interaction between student spelling ability and the proofreading treatment on spelling accuracy was investigated. The sample was divided
into three ability groups in terms of their pretest spelling scores, and the treatment
effects on posttest spelling accuracy were ascertained for each group. Lastly, a
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
418
Journal of Reading Behavior
study was made of spelling accuracy pretest/posttest improvement and decrement
scores.
METHOD
Subjects
Ninety-one fifth-grade students from five elementary schools in an urban,
Southwestern United States school district participated in the study. The sample
consisted of 54 females and 37 males with a mean age of 11.0 years. The ethnic
composition of the sample was 52% Anglo, 31% Hispanic, 10% African American,
and 7% other groups, including Native American and Asian American. Although
107 students were present for the pretest, 16 were excluded from the study because
they failed to attend all the testing and treatment sessions. No significant difference
was obtained between the mean error scores for the retained participants
(M= 32.38) and the excluded children (M = 32.20).
Materials
Ninety experimental spelling words were randomly selected from a list of 400
words in a widely used elementary school spelling program, the Macmillan Spelling
Series (Smith, 1983). The 90 experimental spelling words consisted of 45 predictable and 45 unpredictable words. Predictable words had consistent sound-spelling
correspondence to the extent that their correct spellings were predicted by the
algorithm devised by Hanna, Hanna, Hodges, and Rudorf (1966); unpredictable
words were those misspelled by the algorithm. The predictable and unpredictable
words were matched for difficulty on the basis of frequency of occurrence in print
according to the Standard Frequency Index (Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971).
The 90 experimental words were taken from Macmillan Spelling Series third
through sixth spellers with a majority of the words from the fifth speller. The
resulting 90-word spelling list was used to construct the pretest, the proofreading
treatment materials, and the two posttests.
Three sets of proofreading exercises were developed for each of four days of
treatment. The sets of proofreading treatment exercises were color coded as White,
Blue, and Green. For each treatment day, the three sets consisted of 90 sentences
containing the 90 experimental words (one experimental stimulus word per sentence). The experimental spelling words were presented in context to provide syntactic and semantic information to eliminate homophone confusions as sources of
error. Each stimulus word was underlined to differentiate it from the remaining
words in its sentence. Each underlined stimulus word was either correctly spelled
or misspelled depending on the exercise set. To illustrate, the following sentence
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
419
Table 1
Latin Square Design Used to Control for Word Difficulty Across
Exposures Conditions
Words
Group A
Group B
Group C
N Students
White
Exercise Set
Blue
Green
Always Misspelled
Twice Misspelled
Never Misspelled
Never Misspelled
Always Misspelled
Twice Misspelled
Twice Misspelled
Never Misspelled
Always Misspelled
31
31
29
Note. Always Misspelled = 4 exposures to misspelled word, Never Misspelled = 4 exposures to correctly
spelled word, Twice Misspelled = 2 exposures to misspelled word and 2 exposures to correctly spelled
word.
was used on the first treatment day for the experimental spelling word uncle (misspelled version = unkel), "My aunt and uncle (or unkel) came for dinner." The 90
treatment sentences in an exercise set contained either correct or incorrect spellings
of the 90 experimental words. A different order of presentation and a different set
of sentences was used for the 90 experimental words on each treatment day. For
example, the sentence used for uncle on the second treatment day was, "My uncle
is a pilot."
Within each color-coded exercise set a third of the words were misspelled four
times, a third were misspelled twice and correctly spelled twice, and a third were
correctly spelled four times. Thus, the three color-coded proofreading exercise
sets contained three treatment conditions in terms of frequency of exposure to
misspellings: always misspelled, twice misspelled, and never misspelled. Ninety
words were used to provide adequate test length (n = 15 words) for each of the six
conditions studied (predictable versus unpredictable words by always, twice, and
never misspelled exposure frequency conditions).
A Latin square was used to counterbalance for word difficulty across the three
misspelling exposure frequency conditions. The 90 experimental words were randomly assigned to one of three word groups, designated A words, B words, and
C words. Each of the three groups of 30 words consisted of 15 predictable and 15
unpredictable words. The three word groups were then assigned different misspelling exposure conditions for each of three sets of color-coded exercises. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the three color-coded exercise sets. During
the 4 days of treatment, students assigned to a particular color-coded exercise set
were given each of the three misspelling exposure conditions by word group.
Following the Latin square methodology (see Table 1), the students assigned to
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
420
Journal of Reading Behavior
the White exercise set saw the 30 A-group words misspelled four times, the 30
B-group words misspelled twice and correctly spelled twice, and the 30 C-group
words correctly spelled four times; students assigned to the Blue set saw the 30
A-group words correctly spelled four times, the 30 B-group words misspelled four
times, and the 30 C-group words misspelled twice and correctly spelled twice;
students assigned to the Green set saw the 30 A-group words misspelled twice and
correctly spelled twice, the 30 B-group words correctly spelled four times, and the
30 C-group words misspelled four times. Word predictability and proofreading
exposure frequency were within-student repeated measures. Color-coded exercise
set was a between-student variable; 31 students completed the White set, 31 completed the Blue set, and 29 completed the Green set.
On any given proofreading exercise set, half of the words were misspelled and
half of the words were spelled correctly. One misspelling was consistently used
for each experimental word across all treatment materials. The misspellings were
chosen from lists of reasonable misspellings suggested by six students enrolled in
a graduate level reading diagnosis course. The six graduate students had experience
teaching reading and spelling in regular elementary school classrooms, Chapter I
classes, and/or special education classes. The location of errors within words (beginning, middle, end) was balanced as much as possible, and a variety of error
types (omissions, insertions, substitutions, and transpositions of letters) was represented in the list of 90 experimental word misspellings. Table 2 provides the list
of experimental spelling words together with their respective misspellings.
Separate answer sheets were prepared to accompany the treatment exercise
sets. The separate answer sheets included a written set of directions, and a means
to respond to the 90 treatment items. The provided written directions instructed the
students to read each sentence silently as it was being read aloud to them, look at
the underlined word in the sentence, decide whether it was correctly spelled or
misspelled, match the number of the sentence with the number on the separate
answer sheet, and fill in the appropriate bubble on the answer sheet. Two columns
of bubbles were provided for response with one column under the heading correct
and the other column under misspelled.
Three dictation spelling tests (the pretest and two posttests) were constructed
using the 90 experimental words. The three tests were identical in format and
content except for item order. The order of the spelling words was determined
separately for each test by random assignment. The dictation tests were similar to
those used to assess spelling in most commercially published elementary school
spelling progams. The examiner's copy listed the 90 experimental spelling words
together with their respective stimulus sentences. Stimulus sentences were used
to reduce student phone discrimination confusions and to eliminate homophone
confusions as sources of error. The students were provided with answer sheets
consisting of 90 numbered underlined spaces to use to write the 90 dictated experimental spelling words.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Table 2
Correct and Misspelled Versions of Predictable and Unpredictable Experimental
Spelling Words
Correct
Predictable Words
Misspelled
able
about
chocolate
dime
dull
early
empty
entertainment .
entire
expect
explain
fear
fence
finger
force
fresh
frost
glad
had
hero
institution
kitchen
left
this
mouse
middle
napkin
next
plant
political
proof
pumpkin
puzzle
prize
rock
tomato
trip
section
spend
storm
strong
teeth
usual
vacation
whisper
abel
abaut
choclate
dyme
dul
earley
emty
entertanement
intire
espect
explane
feer
fense
fingur
forse
fersh
frawst
gladd
hed
herow
institusion
kichen
lift
thiz
mowse
middel
napken
nekst
palant
politick
pruf
pumken
puzzel
prise
roc
tomatoe
trep
sektion
spind
Strom
stron
teethe
uzual
vacasion
wisper
Unpredictable Words
Correct
Misspelled
accident
address
although
awful
between
bicycle
braid
breakfast
build
campaign
chicken
community
electricity
enough
eraser
everyone
feather
freight
fountain
governor
island
juice
knife
knowledge
ladder
library
many
medicine
myself
music
necessary
often
pardon
pencil
raise
ready
scissors
soap
straight
stream
sugar
terrible
tomorrow
toward
uncle
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
axcidant
adress
allthough
awfull
betwene
bycicle
brade
brekfast
bild
campain
chiken
comunity
electrisity
anough
eraiser
evryone
fether
frate
fountin
governer
islend
juise
nife
knowlege
laddir
liberry
meny
medasin
mysself
muzic
nesessary
ofen
parden
pensul
rayse
reddy
sissers
sope
strate
streeme
shuger
terrable
tommorrow
toard
unkel
422
Journal of Reading Behavior
Procedure
The tests and treatments were presented in the participants' regular classroom
by the researchers. The participating students were tested and given the proofreading treatment over an eight day cycle. The students were given the spelling dictation
pretest on the first day of the cycle, Monday. On Tuesday through Friday, the
students were given one set of proofreading exercises per day until four sets were
completed. On Friday after the students had finished the fourth proofreading exercise, they were allowed a short break and then were given the first dictated spelling
posttest to measure immediate treatment effects. The second dictated spelling posttest was administered on the following Monday to measure delayed treatment effects. Each of three dictated 90-word spelling tests took approximately 30 minutes
to administer. Within classes, the researchers gave the tests and treatments at the
same time during each of the six days of testing and treatment. Across classes, the
researchers collected data at various times during the morning and afternoon with
the schedules set to meet the needs of the participating teachers.
The same procedure was followed for each of the four proofreading treatment
sessions. At the beginning of each daily exercise, the examiner read aloud the
answer sheet directions instructing the students to silently read the 90 sentences,
proofread the embedded underlined stimulus words for spelling correctness, and
mark on the answer sheet whether each underlined word was correct or misspelled.
As the students worked through the exercises, the researcher read each of the 90
exercise sentences aloud and repeated the underlined stimulus word to insure that
potential reading problems did not confound the treatment. For example, the treatment sentence, "We read the entire book before lunch," was read aloud as "We
read the entire book before lunch . . . entire." After the examiner read aloud each
sentence, she/he paused briefly before reading the next sentence to allow the students time to mark their separate answer sheets. Students were not given feedback
regarding the correctness of their responses to the proofreading exercises. Completion of the proofreading exercises required approximately 30 minutes of class time
per day.
The same procedure was followed on the three dictation spelling tests: the
students listened as the researcher pronounced the spelling word, read aloud a
sentence containing the word, and pronounced the word again. The students responded by writing each dictated word on their answer sheets. The same stimulus
sentences were used for the 90 spelling words across the three tests. Spelling error
scores were obtained for each of the three spelling dictation tests by identifying
and counting student responses that deviated from conventional American English
spelling.
This method resulted in a 3 x 2 x 3 within-subject factorial design: 3 proofreading spelling exposure frequencies (4, 2, and 0 misspellings) X 2 spelling word
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
423
types (predictable and unpredictable) X 3 testing times (pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest).
RESULTS
A mixed factorial ANOVA was used to analyze pretest spelling error scores
for differences attributable to word predictability or student spelling ability. The
results indicate that the main effect of word predictability was significant, F ( l ,
88) = 291.7, p<.0001, meaning that unpredictable words were misspelled more
frequently than predictable words. Pretest spelling error scores for students assigned
to the three color-coded excercise sets did not differ significantly, indicating that
random assignment had effectively controlled differences among students prior to
exposure to the proofreading treatments.
Proofreading misspelled words was expected to increase spelling errors during
posttesting, and the effects of the proofreading treatments were first tested using a
mixed factorial ANOVA for repeated measures. As expected, the main effects for
testing time (pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest), and for exposure
frequency (always misspelled, twice misspelled, and never misspelled) were significant: F(2, 176) = 57.9,p<.0001, andF(2, 176)= 106.4,/?<.0001. The interaction of testing time and exposure condition was also significant, F(4, 352) = 54.4,
/j<.0001. Thus, there were changes in spelling error scores following the proofreading treatments, and the changes were related to the number of exposures to
misspellings of the experimental words.
However, inspection of the mean spelling error scores for the different exposure frequency conditions indicated that the treatment effects were somewhat different than originally expected (see Table 3). Exposure to misspellings had negligible
effects while exposure to correct spellings had substantial effects. There was only
a very slight increase in the number of spelling errors on the immediate posttest
for both predictable and unpredictable words that were always misspelled in the
proofreading exercises. The delayed posttest results for the always misspelled exposure frequency condition were insignificant and contradictory for word type. Although students made a few more delayed posttest spelling errors on unpredictable
words, they made a few less delayed posttest errors on predictable words. But the
mean spelling error score differences between the pretest and the two posttests
following treatment exposure to correct spellings were substantially larger. Student
mean spelling error scores decreased for words (both predictable and unpredictable)
that were spelled correctly in the proofreading exercises, even when the correct
spellings were only presented twice and accompanied by two misspelling presentations during the treatment. Students made even fewer posttest spelling errors on
words that were always spelled correctly in the proofreading treatment exercises.
For words that were twice misspelled (twice correctly spelled) and never misspelled
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Journal of Reading Behavior
424
Table 3
Means and (Standard Deviations) of Spelling Error Scores for Predictable and
Unpredictable Words by Exposure Condition
Always
Misspelled
Exposure Condition
Twice
Misspelled
Never
Misspelled
Predictable Words
Pretest
1st Posttest
2nd Posttest
4.1 (3.3)
4.5 (3.1)
3.9 (3.0)
4.0 (3.6)
2.9 (2.7)
3.2 (2.8)
4.0 (3.3)
2.4 (2.5)
2.6 (2.8)
Unpredictable Words
Pretest
1st Posttest
2nd Posttest
6.8 (3.7)
7.2 (3.6)
7.0 (3.6)
6.6 (4.1)
5.2 (3.4)
5.3 (3.6)
6.8 (4.0)
4.6 (3.5)
4.7 (3.4)
Word Type
(always correctly spelled), mean spelling error scores for the delayed posttest did
not differ significantly from those for the immediate posttest, indicating that improvements in spelling accuracy attributable to exposures to correct words endured
over the 3-day interval between posttests.
Caisley (1982) suggested that students differing in spelling ability might respond differently to proofreading lessons, and she recommended further investigation of the relationship between ability and learning from proofreading. More specifically, Caisley thought proofreading might have benefits for poorer spellers but
not for students of better ability. Her suggestions seemed especially interesting in
light of earlier studies by Gilbert (1934, 1935) that indicated poorer spellers were
less able to learn spellings from reading than were better spellers.
It was assumed that a student's error score on the pretest was a reasonable
estimate of spelling ability, and an additional ANOVA was done to determine
whether the effects of the proofreading treatments used in this study would support
either Caisley's predictions or Gilbert's. In other words, would students who misspelled more words on the pretest improve more or less following the proofreading
treatments than those who misspelled fewer words on the pretest?
Since spelling errors for predictable and unpredictable words were significantly
correlated (r=.92, p<.001), the number of incorrect pretest spellings of all 90
experimental words was used to establish three ability groups of good, average,
and poor spellers. The good spellers (« = 30, M= 11.0) misspelled 3 to 21 words
on the pretest; the average spellers (n = 30, M=30.5) misspelled 22 to 37 words;
the poor spellers (n = 31, M=54.3) misspelled 38 to 76 words.
The analysis was again a mixed factorial ANOVA for repeated measures. The
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
425
Table 4
Means and (Standard Deviations) of Spelling Error Scores for the Three Student
Spelling Ability Groups by Exposure Condition
Ability Group
Always
Misspelled
Exposure Condition
Twice
Misspelled
Good Spellers
Pretest
1st Posttest
2nd Posttest
3.9 (2.8)
5.5 (3.4)
5.2 (3.3)
3.4 (2.6)
2.7 (2.3)
2.9 (2.2)
3.7 (3.2)
2.0 (2.2)
2.1 (1.8)
Average Spellers
Pretest
1st Posttest
2nd Posttest
10.5 (3.5)
10.9 (3.2)
10.1 (3.7)
9.4 (3.6)
7.0 (2.9)
7.7 (3.1)
10.6 (3.9)
6.2 (2.8)
6.3 (3.5)
Poor Spellers
Pretest
1st Posttest
2nd Posttest
18.0 (4.8)
18.4 (5.1)
17.4 (5.2)
18.5 (5.9)
14.3 (5.3)
14.6 (5.7)
17.9 (5.6)
12.4 (5.9)
13.2 (5.9)
Never
Misspelled
main effects for ability group (good, average, and poor), for test time (pretest,
immediate posttest, delayed posttest), and for exposure frequency (always misspelled, twice misspelled, and never misspelled) were all significant: F{2,
88)= 162.0, p<.0001, F(2, 176) = 73.7, /><.0001, and F(2, 176) = 87.1,
p<.0001. But the result of most interest was that the interaction of ability by
exposure frequency was not significant. Thus, although spellers of all three ability
levels decreased spelling errors following exposure to correct spellings in the proofreading treatment exercises, the decrease was not related to spelling accuracy on
the pretest. This result did not support Caisley's report that poorer spellers gained
more from proofreading. But neither did it support Gilbert's conclusion that poorer
spellers gained less from reading than better spellers. The mean spelling error
scores for good, average, and poor spellers are presented in Table 4.
Exposure to misspelled words during the treatment did not significantly affect
the spelling accuracy of the students in the sample. However, an inspection of the
data revealed that the students in the sample varied from each other in terms of the
extent to which their spelling accuracy was increased or reduced by the three
experimental exposure conditions. Given this information, it was felt that even
though exposure to misspellings may not have had a general effect on the entire
sample of students, it was possible that it might have affected a subgroup of
outlier students. Therefore, an analysis of this student score variation was made by
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
426
Journal of Reading Behavior
Table 5
Number of Students Obtaining CI and IC Difference Scores for Always
Misspelled and Never Misspelled Exposure Conditions
Size of Difference
Exposure Condition
Always Misspelled
Never Misspelled
CI
CI
IC
IC
18
17
21
15
12
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
7
12
17
20
17
10
3
3
0
2
0
0
0
Total N Students
91
0
1
2
3
4
5
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
35
34
16
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
8
11
15
8
11
91
91
91
5
6
5
4
3
2
Note. CI = Correct spelling on the pretest and incorrect spelling on the immediate posttest; IC = Incorrect
spelling on the pretest and correct spelling on the immediate posttest.
computing difference scores between the pretest and the immediate posttest for two
of the three exposure conditions, always misspelled and never misspelled. The data
were tallied in terms of the two possible types of difference scores, decrement or
CI scores (CI = correct on the pretest, incorrect on the posttest), and improvement
or IC scores (incorrect on the pretest, correct on the posttest). An inspection of
Table 5 reveals several distinct patterns.
The students had greater difficulty maintaining their level of spelling accuracy
under the always misspelled exposure condition than under the never misspelled
condition. Only 7 students were able show no decrement (CI = 0) under the always
misspelled condition, whereas 35 of them showed no decrement under the never
misspelled condition.
Some of the students obtained rather extreme decrement scores and these, too,
were related to the spelling exposure condition. CI scores of 5 or greater were
obtained by 18 of the students under the always misspelled condition, whereas only
1 student had a decrement of 5 and none scored greater than 5 under the never
misspelled condition. Extreme CI scores were obtained by a few of the students
under the always misspelled condition, with 3 students misspelling 7 words on the
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
All
posttest that they had previously spelled correctly, and another 2 students misspelling 9 words that they had previously spelled correctly.
Most of the students showed some improvement under both exposure conditions, but the students obtained IC scores of greater magnitude under the never
misspelled condition than under the always misspelled condition. Eighteen students
showed no improvement under the always misspelled condition, whereas only 6
showed no improvement under the never misspelled condition. IC scores of 5 or
greater were obtained by only 8 of the students under the always misspelled condition, whereas 44 of them improved their spelling accuracy by 5 or more words
under the never misspelled condition. Although none of the students under the
always misspelled condition were able to obtain IC scores of 9 or greater, 14 of
them under the never misspelled condition improved their accuracy by 9 or more
words, with 3 of them improving by 11 words and another 2 improving by 13
words.
DISCUSSION
The proofreading (misspelling detection) exercises used in the present study
provided a means for investigating the instructional effects of proofreading exercises similar to those commonly used in classrooms. The one difference between
the procedure used in this study and normal classroom practice was the number of
times students were exposed to the misspelled words. Students were exposed to as
many as four misspellings of the same words across four treatment days in this
study. In the typical spelling curriculum, students may be asked to study lists or
sentences with embedded misspellings to locate errors no more than once a week.
Furthermore, misspellings of words are seldom repeated in published spelling instructional materials. A second deviation from typical classroom practice was that
the experimental proofreading exercises were read aloud by the researchers to
the participating students as they followed along and attempted the experimental
proofreading task. In contrast, most classroom proofreading tasks are attempted
independently by students with no listening component. A third limitation was the
underlining of the stimulus words in the proofreading treatment sentences.
Several other limitations should be mentioned regarding this study. The sample
of experimental spelling words was intended to represent the population of spelling
words commonly taught by fifth grade, but there may have been some bias in the
word selection process. Only one of the many commercial spelling series was used
in developing the initial word pool, and selection from that series was restricted
by the decision to choose word pairs consisting of a predictable word and an
unpredictable word on the basis of frequency of appearance in print (Hanna, Hanna,
Hodges, & Rudorf, 1966). Furthermore, even though the two types of words
selected (predictable and unpredictable) were equivalent in terms of frequency of
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
428
Journal of Reading Behavior
use, the predictable words were much easier for the students to spell. As a result,
effects of exposure to correct spellings were attenuated for predictable words.
The most significant finding of this study is that exposure to correct spellings
had a significant positive effect on spelling accuracy. Average spellers typically
learned the correct spellings of one or two predictable words and two or three
unpredictable words as a result of their exposure to the correct spellings of those
words during the experimental proofreading tasks. The delayed posttest results
indicated that those gains in spelling accuracy were durable.
Improvements in spelling accuracy were directly related to the number of times
the experimental words were spelled correctly in the exercises. The amount of gain
was related to the number of times (0, 2, or 4) a correctly spelled word was
proofread. Similar trends were observed for good, average, and poor spellers,
although the rate of improvement in spelling predictable words was less for good
and average spellers than poor spellers. This may partly be attributed to an error
score floor effect for the average and good spellers because their pretest scores
revealed that they already knew how to spell most of the predictable words.
Caisley (1982) found that her subjects did worse on written spelling tests when
they were given additional proofreading exercises. Jacoby's (1983) observations
and Brown's (1988) findings suggest that viewing misspellings can interfere with
subsequent ability to produce correct spellings. The findings of Caisley (1982),
Jacoby (1983), and Brown (1988) have possible implications for (a) spelling instruction that involves proofreading exercises with embedded misspellings and (b)
composition and spelling practices that insure multiple exposures to student spelling
inventions.
Therefore, it was encouraging to discover that the proofreading tasks used in
this study did not have significant detrimental effects on the spelling accuracy. It
was found that repeated exposures to misspellings neither helped nor harmed spelling accuracy of most of the children who participated in this study. This should be
considered to be a fairly robust finding because the participating students viewed
a misspelling of a word as many as four times during a 1-week interval, an experience with repeated misspellings likely to exceed anything they might encounter in
a typical classroom.
Although the student sample as a whole was not significantly affected by
repeated exposures to misspellings during the experimental proofreading task, a few
students exhibited substantial loss of spelling accuracy following those experiences.
Eight of the 91 students had decrement scores of 6 or more words under the always
misspelled condition, and 2 of those 8 students missed 9 words on the posttest that
they spelled correctly on the pretest. It may be that students similar to these outliers
require special consideration during spelling and composition instruction.
Fernald (1943) may have had students similar to these outliers in mind when
she recommended that, " . . .the original (student) paper with the misspelled words
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
429
should not be given back to the pupil unless these words are completely blacked
out and the correct forms written in their place" (p. 204). Despite Clay's (1975)
pioneer contribution regarding the role of invented spelling in a child's development
of writing competence, she later advocated a practice similar to Fernald's for
beginning reading students with high potential for failure. Clay (1985) suggested
that a spelling error occurring during the writing component of a Reading Recovery
lesson be masked, and that the teacher have the child " . . . get a correct attempt
under way with help" (p. 64). It should also be noted that both Fernald (1943)
and Clay (1985) advocated prompt exposure of a word's correct spelling after
removal of the misspelled version. This practice is consistent with the major finding
of this study, exposure to correct spellings facilitates spelling accuracy.
An inspection of the students' pretest and posttest responses suggests there
was some tendency toward misspellings that conformed to the experimental misspellings. For example, one student correctly wrote SPEND on the pretest, then
wrote SPIND (the experimental misspelling) on the immediate posttest, and then
reverted again to SPEND on the delayed posttest. In some cases, the provided
misspelled stimulus words gave partial information regarding spelling accuracy.
For example, a student wrote BREDFUST on the pretest, but BREKFAST (the
experimental misspelling of breakfast) on both posttests. This student actually
profited from repeated exposures to the provided misspelled stimulus word (brekfast) as it enabled her to subsequently produce a response on the posttests, (BREKFAST) that was closer to the correct spelling (one letter omitted) than her original
response (BREDFUST = two letters substituted and one omitted).
Exposure to a misspelled exercise stimulus word during the proofreading treatment occasionally facilitated subsequent spelling accuracy. To illustrate, one student spelled electricity as ELECTRECITY on the pretest. After being exposed to
the stimulus misspelling electrisity four times during the 4 days of treatment, the
student subsequently spelled the word correctly on the two posttests. The portion
of the word that this student had missed originally on the pretest was correct in the
provided misspelled stimulus word during the treatment. It appears that this student
profited from this proofreading experience, learning that the third vowel in electricity is an i rather than an e. In addition, this student appeared to choose to ignore
the substitution of s for c in the misspelled stimulus word electrisity. In such cases
as these, the provided misspelled stimulus words actually contained clues as to
how to correct previously misspelled words.
Gains in spelling accuracy appeared to be a function of word difficulty and
spelling ability. Because the 90 experimental words varied in difficulty, poor spellers had the opportunity to improve their spellings of easy words, whereas better
spellers could improve their spelling of more difficult words. The range of difficulty
that defined the experimental words allowed most of the students in the sample to
perform at their own spelling instructional levels. And at the level where learning
and improvement occurred for a particular student, that child was able to ignore
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
430
Journal of Reading Behavior
misspellings and attend to correct spellings. These observations suggest that it is
likely that some level of prior knowledge about how a word looks may determine
the ease of learning to spell that word.
The results of this study raise doubt regarding the efficacy of using proofreading exercises for the teaching of spelling. Given that standardized tests often use
proofreading-type items to test spelling knowledge, it might be argued that students
should be given proofreading exercises in preparation for testing. Yet, Caisley
(1982) found that most students given proofreading practice did no better on a
recognition spelling test than students who did not have that practice. The low
achieving students in Caisley's sample who were able to somewhat improve their
recognition spelling test scores showed no improvement in written spelling accuracy. Thus, proofreading appears to be a dubious method of improving spelling
performance even as a preparation for standardized testing.
Future Directions
This study raises several questions that can serve to stimulate future research
regarding how students learn to spell and the relationship between reading and
spelling. While most of the students in this study were relatively unaffected by
exposure to misspellings, a few outliers were dramatically affected. It appears
warranted to conduct research to find out why the spelling accuracy of some students is impaired by exposure to misspellings whereas that of others is not.
Smith's (1982) notions regarding the interrelationship between reading and
writing were supported by this study's finding that the proofreading of correctly
spelled words improved spelling accuracy. Krashen (1989) has proposed an Input
Hypothesis regarding vocabulary and spelling acquisition which proposes that extent of reading experience improves spelling accuracy. Although this study did not
investigate incidental learning due to reading experience, its finding that spelling
accuracy was increased due to exposure of correct spellings during proofreading
was consistent with Krashen's Input Hypothesis. In addition, Supramanian (1983)
found proofreading to be related to reading ability and suggested that this relationship was probably due to reading experience involving the correct forms of the
words. Therefore, additional research regarding the relationship between proofreading and spelling may offer one way to help us better understand the nature of the
reading and writing connection.
It appears appropriate to conduct proofreading/spelling research connected
with invented spelling methodology. Wilde (1992) has suggested that invented
spellings should have no adverse effect on subsequent spelling accuracy because
children are aware that " . . . their invented spellings are different from standard
spellings and don't put any energy (conscious or unconscious) into remembering
them" (p. 157). On the other hand, Wilde condemned using basal spelling program
proofreading exercises because the misspellings seen in print might cause future
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Effects of Proofreading
431
confusion. Research regarding the effects of exposure to contrived misspellings
versus invented spellings on spelling accuracy seems appropriate.
Calkins (1986), Graves (1983), and Wilde (1992) suggest that students edit
their own first draft efforts as well as those of their peers for spelling and other
factors. It appears that proofreading/spelling research should be conducted within
the context of composition instruction.
REFERENCES
Allen, D., & Ager, J. (1965). A factor analytic study of the ability to spell. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 153-161.
Allred, R. A. (1984). Spelling trends, content, and methods: What research says to the teacher. West
Haven, CT: National Education Association.
Brown, A. S. (1988). Encountering misspellings and spelling performance: Why wrong isn't right.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 488-494.
Caisley, K. (1982). Evaluation of implementing proofreading into the school spelling program. Educational Research Institute of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 880)
Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). American heritage word frequency book. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Chomsky, C. (1971a). Invented spelling in the open classroom. Word, 27, 499-551.
Chomsky, C. (1971b). Write first, read later. Childhood Education, 47, 296-299.
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Aukland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
Fernald, G. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gilbert, L. C. (1934). The effect of reading on spelling in the secondary schools. California Quarterly
of Secondary Education, 9, 269-275.
Gilbert, L. C. (1935). A study of the effect of reading on spelling. Journal of Educational Research,
28, 570-576.
Goodman, K. S. (1984). Unity in reading. In A. C. Purves & O. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a
complex society. Eighty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp.70113). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1979). Spelling research and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children,
12, 1-16.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Publication No. OE-32008). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hieronymus, A. N., Hoover, H. D., & Lindquist, E. F. (1988). Teachers guide: Iowa tests of basic
skills, Multi-level Battery, Form J, Levels 9-14. Chicago: Riverside.
Jacoby, L. L. (1983, November). Effects of recent prior experience on spelling. Paper presented at the
Twenty-fourth Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Diego, CA.
Kottmeyer, W., & Claus, A. (1980). Basic goals in spelling. New York: Webster Division,
McGraw-Hill.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the Input
Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
432
Journal of Reading Behavior
Madden, R., & Carlson, T. (1963). HBJ spelling. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
National Commission on Testing & Public Policy (1990). From gatekeeper to gateway: Transforming
testing in America. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Commission on Testing & Public Policy, Boston
College.
Niemi, P., & Virjamo, M. (1986). Proofreading: Visual, phonological, syntactic or all of these? Journal
of Research in Reading, 9, 31-38.
Personke, C., & Knight, L. (1967). Proofreading and spelling: A report and a program. Elementary
English, 44, 768-774.
Read, C. (1971). Pre-school children's knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review,
41, 1-34.
Read, C. (1975). Children's categorizations of speech sounds in English. Urbana, IL.: National Council
of Teachers of English.
Shepard, L. A. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Kappan, 73, 232-238.
Shores, J. H., & Yee, A. H. (1973). Spelling achievement tests: What is available and needed? Journal
of Special Education. 7, 301-309.
Smith, C. (1983). Macmillan spelling series. Riverside, NJ: Macmillan.
Smith, F. (1982). Writing and the writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Smith, M. L. (1989). The role of external testing in elementary schools. Los Angeles: Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA.
Supramanian, S. (1983). Proofreading errors in good and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 36, 68-80.
Thomas, O., Thomas, I. D., & Lutkus, A. (1978). The world of spelling. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Vallecorsa, A. L., Zigmond, N., & Henderson, L. M. (1985). Spelling instruction in special education
classrooms: A survey of practices. Exceptional Children, 52, 19-24.
Valmont, W. I., & Valmont, R. W. (1980). Spelling. New York: American Book.
Wilde, S. (1990). A proposal for a new spelling curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 90,
275-289.
Wilde, S. (1992). You kan red this.' Spelling and punctuation for whole language classrooms, K-6.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016