1. Spell checking when working online E.A. Draffan and Abi James

2. Children who use technology are “better writers” Zoe Kleinman, BBC News. 3 December, 2009 Children who blog, text or use social networking websites have better writing skills than those who do not, according to the National Literacy Trust. A survey of 3,001 children aged nine to 16 found that 24% had their own blog and 82% sent text messages at least once a month, 73% used instant messaging services to chat online with friends.

3. Working online - patterns of reading and writing Jonathan Douglas, director of the National Literacy Trust. "Engagement with online technology drives their enthusiasm for writing short stories, letters, song lyrics or diaries." "Does it damage literacy? Our research results are conclusive - the more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills." Debate later!

4. Well-known user-interface, evolved from tools within word processors. “red squiggly line” Tools within web browsers Context-sensitive checking tools Spell checking with online apps Assistive technology tools that work across most applications

5. Possible Strategies Specialist software e.g. TextHelp Read and Write, ClaroRead, Verity Spell checker, etc Browser spell checkers – built in or add-ons e.g. Google toolbar, ieSpell, Firefox British Dictionary Web based spell checkers - part of a web page or integrated into the text editor e.g. Facebook etc. Web based ‘content sensitive checkers’ e.g. Ginger and Ghotit.

6. How are the students spell checking blogs, wikis etc?  Guildford College – 15 students 6 depended on using MS Word with ‘Cut and Paste’.  32 LexDis participants http://www.lexdis.org some used assistive technologies, others said ‘not sure it is right’ ask a human, others cut and pasted from Word, used Google etc…http://www.lexdis.org  34 Post graduate students 4 suggested use of Word, Google search and toolbar or Safari on Mac

7. Is online word processing here? Who would win in a fight: Microsoft Office or Google Docs? Microsoft Office 51% (1365 votes) Google Docs 37% (994 votes) Tie: They're Both Good 12% (315 votes) Total Votes: 2674 (Mashable Nov. 09)

8. The message from students – Keep it simple!

9. Performance of spell checkers varies

10. Performance of spell checkers varies BUT so does usability

11. Personalisation Will this do for all of you? Showing one size t-shirt No that won’t fit me We are all unique with individual needs and requirements

12. So how accurate are spell checkers? Test: 1. Single word spelling errors (or non- words) 2. non-word errors and real word errors in context (controlled sample) 3. non-word errors and real word errors in context (free writing example)

13. Non-word error test Why? assess the accuracy of spell checkers and particularly how close to the top of a suggestion list the target word occurs. Used database and tests from James & Draffan (2005) of errors made by dyslexic adults and children in free writing and spelling tests 1. Random sample of 96 errors, includes duplicate errors for the same target word 2. Random sample of 30 miss-spelling for 30 words from publically available sub-section of the James & Draffan database.

14. Single non-word error correction accuracy

15. No updates Results may be updated from users errors Results may be updated from server database 4 7 1 6 (1) 1 1 0 0 7

16. Some checkers can also correct real word errors Real word errors can be a caused by a… Homophone e.g. piece / peace Typing error, e.g. form / from Spelling error creating a real-word which a poor reader is unable to detect e.g. told / fold Homophone checkers identify homophone and suggest alternatives spellings Contextual spell checkers claim to be able to identify and correct any real-word errors.

17. Some checkers can also correct real word errors

18. Testing contextual spell checkers Not based on a wordlist or lexicon. Need to: – Identifying the real word error – Suggest correct word Reasons for failure, in order of magnitude: 1. Not identifying the real-word error (false negative) 2. Identifying a correct word as an error (false positive) 3. Identifying a real-word error but not suggesting the correct word

19. Test 1: Controlled data Created 30 sentences, each containing a non-word error from the James & Draffan (2005) database. Then added a real-word error to each sentence. Real word error could be: A homophone e.g. need / knead Letter transposition, addition or removal to produce a real word e.g. bank / blank Similar looking or sounding word e.g. involved / evolved

20. Results of controlled data

21. Test 2: Free writing example 74 word paragraph by a year 10 dyslexic: He duse this at the begen by saying about this purson “sat in a wheeled chair, wating for dark,” now Owen in this poem starts off if he was fare away from the solder like he is looken on to the solder. Then leter on in the poem he get moor clowser to him and sturts to discrid his amosins and even get the reader in the amoshen like if you where the solder. 11 non-word errors 7 real-word errors

22. Word 2007 corrected version He does this at the begen by saying about this person “sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark,” now Owen in this poem starts off if he was fare away from the solder like he is looking on to the solder. Then later on in the poem he get moor closer to him and starts to discrid his amosins and even get the reader in the amoshen like if you where the solder.

23. Google toolbar corrected version He duse this at the begen by saying about this person “sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark,” now Owen in this poem starts off if he was fare away from the solder like he is looking on to the solder. Then later on in the poem he get moor closer to him and starts to discrid his amosins and even get the reader in the amoshen like if you where the solder.

24. Ginger corrected version He does this at the begen by saying about this person “sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark,” now Owen in this poem starts off if he was far away from the soldier like he is looking onto the solder. Then later on in the poem he gets more closer to him and starts to describe his emotions and even get the reader in the emotions like if you where the solder.

25. Conclusions Online working is a reality but learners don’t adapt the same proofing strategies as off line working There are many spell-checking tools that can be used with online work But their usability and accuracy vary Who knows of their existence? Contextual correction has arrived REMEMBER – keep it simple & personal

26. Contact Details E.A. Draffan Learning Societies Lab, Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton. Mobile 07976 289103 E-mail: ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk Abi James Iansyst Ltd Cambridge 01223 420101 E-mail: abi@iansyst.co.uk www.dyslexic.com

27. Useful Links LexDis Project website: www.lexdis.org www.lexdis.org James and Draffan (2004): www.dyslexic.com/accuracy