What can writing-process data add to the assessment of spelling difficulties?

Abstract

AbstractSpelling difficulties are commonly associated primarily with spelling errors. However, it is not uncommon for spelling challenges to transform the whole writing process into a formidable struggle. This paper delves into the exploration of whether and to what extent analyses of children’s writing processes can enhance our understanding of their difficulties, potentially contributing to the assessment of spelling challenges. We focused particularly on the degree of hesitation within words and the ability to detect and correct spelling errors among children with and without reading and spelling difficulties, as well as how these processes impact the quality and lexical diversity of their texts. Additionally, we sought to contribute to disentangling the influence of spelling and decoding abilities on these processes. A cohort of 47 children, aged 10–13, participated in the study, comprising 16 typically developing children, 16 with predominantly spelling difficulties, and 15 with both reading and spelling difficulties. Our analysis encompassed their spelling performance in both standardized tests and task-oriented writing samples, as well as an examination of their pausing and revision behaviour. As expected, we found robust correlations between the children’s spelling test scores and the proportions of spelling errors in their texts. Furthermore, our findings indicated that children encountering spelling difficulties exhibited a reduced ability to detect and correct errors compared to their peers without such challenges. Additionally, they displayed a slightly higher tendency to experience word-internal interruptions, aligning with prior research. The children who also had reading difficulties produced fewer words and processed words more slowly compared to children in both the other groups. Intriguingly, process data did not reliably predict text characteristics, suggesting that dysfluent writing may not significantly detriment the overall quality of the text, contrary to our initial expectations based on prevailing writing development models. Nevertheless, the study revealed considerable individual variation, with some participants demonstrating a high degree of struggling and dysfluency, resulting in poorer text outcomes, but also others whose struggling processes led to better outcomes. We posit that the crucial aspect lies in identifying these individuals within a classroom context and gaining insights into their processes to provide them with appropriate, formative feedback and adequate writing tools to facilitate their writing.