NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/15/nspell15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/15/ixhome.html

Examiners marking an English test taken by 600,000 14-year-olds have been told not to deduct marks for incorrect spelling on the main writing paper, worth nearly a third of the overall marks.

The rule, issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, means that pupils could spell every word wrongly in the most significant piece of writing that they are required to do and yet still receive full marks.

Anyone have any experience with this? Opinions?

My spelling/grammatical skills are horrible(I got more questions wrong in the grammer section of my GMATS that in all other sections combined), but I think that it is an important skill.

edit: to clarify, there is no particular grammer section, but the english section is broken down into reading comp and grammer i believe(I took my gmats somewhere in early '98 so my memory might be hazy)

http://www.luds.net/gueststars/1/kelsey%20grammer.jpg

Grammer.

Ugh. Kelsey Grammer is evil, especially when he's sideshow bob.

Ugh. Kelsey Grammer is evil, especially when he's sideshow bob.

Sideshow Bob is love!

Call me rah, but I thank my parents in my head often (wouldn't do my dad's opinion of me any good to let him know I respect him enough to admit he was right ;)) for sending me to private school.

From the same report:

Examiners this year have to follow the QCA's mark scheme, which dictates how scores are allocated. In the longer writing paper, in which pupils were asked to write a piece on the design of a robot, 14 marks were given for composition and effect, eight were available for sentence structure and punctuation, and eight also for text structure and organisation. Spelling was not assessed at all.

In training sessions a week ago, markers were told: "We are not going through [pupils' scripts] saying this is wrong and that is wrong, we are looking at what pupils can do."

A pupil's ability to spell is taken into account only in the "shorter writing task" where it is allocated a possible four marks out of 20. Across the English test as a whole, which includes two reading papers, spelling accounts for a total of just four marks out of 100.

It does seem reasonable to me that the ability to construct meaningful and effective text should carry a lot more weight than spelling. Remember most of these kids will only ever write longhand under exam conditions, and computers have spell checkers. What a computer can not do is composition, grammatical structure and textual organisation.
I am not arguing that spelling does not matter, I am simply arguing that some other things in writing matter more. 4% of the final mark seems to be somewhere like the right area for the weight that spelling deserves.

It does seem reasonable to me that the ability to construct meaningful and effective text should carry a lot more weight than spelling. Remember most of these kids will only ever write longhand under exam conditions, and computers have spell checkers. What a computer can not do is composition, grammatical structure and textual organisation.

Many computer programmes also can't recognise input if it's misspelt, because generally only Word Processors have spellcheckers, and John Q. Student who hasn't worked much with computers often won't understand that, for example, if you type "Queen Elizabeths Grammer School" it will create a separate entry to "Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School", which will cause problems, if only because entries are unevenly distributed.

I've worked as an English teacher for six and a half years, and I'm shocked, completely shocked, at how no serious effort has been made to simplify English spelling. I'm not suggesting anything drastic, I'd be happy with a slow reform. It would make life easier for kids, many adults, and the hundreds of millions of people across the world who are leaning or use English as a second language.

Meh, that's nothing. You should see Mexican education standards, that would give you something to complain about.

I mock your complaints about low education standards :P

Many computer programmes also can't recognise input if it's misspelt, because generally only Word Processors have spellcheckers, and John Q. Student who hasn't worked much with computers often won't understand that, for example, if you type "Queen Elizabeths Grammer School" it will create a separate entry to "Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School", which will cause problems, if only because entries are unevenly distributed.

Given the availability of dictionaries and spell checking algorithms, any program that requires the spelling to be consistent can easily incorporate spell checking. It could even be done on internet forums if the php code was set up right. I still think that it is more important to concentrate on teaching how to use the language, how to express yourself in writing, than to demand that people can spell 'necessary' or 'bureaucracy'.

I've worked as an English teacher for six and a half years, and I'm shocked, completely shocked, at how no serious effort has been made to simplify English spelling. I'm not suggesting anything drastic, I'd be happy with a slow reform. It would make life easier for kids, many adults, and the hundreds of millions of people across the world who are leaning or use English as a second language.


Shall we all type papers then that look like this:
"Romeo & Juliet -- u wuld not bleave how gud this play is! Ppl have bin reading it 4 over 400 yrs!" I see no reason why correct spelling cannot be learned -- you learned it and so did I. Are you saying that children today are less intelligent than we were at their age? Or that second langauge learners cannot learn language correctly?


In NY, there is a series of tests which must be passed to graduate from high school called the Regents Exams. The English Regents consists of four essays: one informational, the data for which is dictated to the students; one 'research' where a short article and some kind of graphic is presented, from which a student must synthesize a paper and cite properly; one 'unified theme' essay, in which students read two short works (often an excerpted story or essay + a poem) and compare and contrast the treatment of a common theme; and finally, the 'critical lens' essay in which students analyze two works of literature using a focus statement as an organizing device.

The English regents is marked thusly:

20% -- Meaning (Did the student understand the question when he or she read it? Is that apparent throughout the introduction and the rest of the paper?

20% Development -- how well does the student support his argument, especially citing from provided passages?

20% Organization -- Do things follow in logical order? Does she understand the concept of paragraphing effectively? Does he use transitional words/phrases to move from one idea to the next?

20% Language Use -- Rhythm and Style, effective turns of phrase, and is the style appropriate for the piece (formal)

20% conventions -- Spelling, punctuation, grammatical correctness.


In this fashion, if a student is a truly atrocious speller but does an amazing job at the other categories, he could still receive a B grade. It recognizes the whole writing process and does not place grammar as the highest criteria -- yet recognizes that it is an important one.

From the same report:



It does seem reasonable to me that the ability to construct meaningful and effective text should carry a lot more weight than spelling. Remember most of these kids will only ever write longhand under exam conditions, and computers have spell checkers. What a computer can not do is composition, grammatical structure and textual organisation.
I am not arguing that spelling does not matter, I am simply arguing that some other things in writing matter more. 4% of the final mark seems to be somewhere like the right area for the weight that spelling deserves.

I am all for spell checks and even calculators in class, but at a much later age. Teach the basics when students are young(14) and later on you can let the machines do the drudge work.

frankly, nowadays, kids just can't spell - i blame it on "txt speak". it seems reasonable to me to reduce the importance of spelling, in light of that, from a third of the marks, but not to just 4%... seems a bit low for what is, really, an important skill. 10% would be better imo

If you want to learn to spell properly, you can. Even if the language in question isn't your native language. But it seems to me that reducing emphasis on spelling when determining a student's grade, will reduce the student's motivation to learn proper grammar.

Shall we all type papers then that look like this:
"Romeo & Juliet -- u wuld not bleave how gud this play is! Ppl have bin reading it 4 over 400 yrs!" I see no reason why correct spelling cannot be learned -- you learned it and so did I. Are you saying that children today are less intelligent than we were at their age? Or that second langauge learners cannot learn language correctly?

I have mixed feelings about this one. The entire point of language is to get an idea across. Anyone who reads that sentence can understand it. Basically people realize that they can misspell/simplify words and still get their idea across. Why go through the un-necessary work? In some instances a simplification could be useful. You still know a word when its spelled the way it sounds. EX: thnx, y, ic. And can you explain why honor needs a silent 'h'?

But at the same time it is a factor of laziness. American students do not do so well in school because they do not realize the consequences of doing poorly. Many of my friends flunked all through middle school because grades did not matter. When they got to high school they did not have the knowledge to advance to higher-level classes. Anyone that got stuck in the lower classes was screwed from the beginning as they are stuck with a class full of people that do not give a crap about learning. The teachers don't care, the classes are disruptful... their is no hope for a student that can learn.

Once students leave elementary school their heads are filled with vocabulary and teachers 'right way to write an essay'. All of the English rules are left behind. There are spelling tests, but the words are rarely used in everyday speech so they are forgotten. Learning how to write essays are a joke. Most of the time the technique is different for every teacher, and if it isn't done their way they give you poor grades. If anything there is no building upon previous skills. "Yay, I know fifty words that mean the same thing in a thesaurus and five different ways to write an essay."

Good lucky finding a way to fix these problems...

Anyone who reads that sentence can understand it. Basically people realize that they can misspell/simplify words and still get their idea across. Why go through the un-necessary work?
Anyone can play an instrument. Why go through the unnecessary work of practicing until people enjoy listening to you? Language is by far our most important instrument, and by not requiring correctness in language, we would be doing a grave disservice to our students. Misspellings and abbreviations are not permitted in quarterly reports and memos in businesses, and having a limited vocabulary is definitely an obstacle to getting access to top-level jobs. No matter how intelligent you really are, you do sound rather foolish if you can't master the art of putting together a sentence in your native language and/or the language you are trying to use to communicate.

As a matter of fact, the laziness and the poor pedagogical practice of allowing younger level students to use invented spellings without correction is why I have high school students who write term papers that resemble the sentence I posted earlier. Does anyone here really believe that a college professor, an employer, or even a moderately educated person is going to look at that with any respect or care about the message when the form is a mess?


The teachers don't care, the classes are disruptful... their is no hope for a student that can learn. DisrupTIVE. I do care, thank you very much -- it's many of my students who don't. I could do an interpretive dance of the lesson on my desk in tap pants, Go-Go boots and a fringe halter top and their text messages, iPods, and video game magazine would still be their top priority. (See, I can generalize too.) And that's also a cop-out. ANY student can learn if he or she is determined to do it. I had my share of less than optimal environments in which to learn, and I managed it. I also see students doing it in classes where other students are just plain asses whose rights, God forbid, would be violated if they were removed from the class for being disruptive. (I always wonder what makes their right to be disruptive trump others' right to learn when clearly the purpose of schooling is to be educated.

Once students leave elementary school their heads are filled with vocabulary and teachers 'right way to write an essay'. All of the English rules are left behind. There are spelling tests, but the words are rarely used in everyday speech so they are forgotten. Learning how to write essays are a joke. Most of the time the technique is different for every teacher, and if it isn't done their way they give you poor grades. If anything there is no building upon previous skills. "Yay, I know fifty words that mean the same thing in a thesaurus and five different ways to write an essay."

Good lucky finding a way to fix these problems...

Yes. Vocabulary is evil. Heaven forbid we know how to articulate our ideas in different ways. Also, the general structure of an essay does not change -- they should be 4-5 paragraphs long, each paragraph should consist of a topic sentence and a minimum of three details, and a transitional sentence to lead you into the next paragraph -- but there are many different kinds of essay: the reflective essay (analyzing a situation as it pertains to oneself), the persuasive essay, the thematic essay... there is no one-size fits all. You need to learn the proper essay to write for the proper situation.

You wouldn't use a sledgehammer to turn a bolt, would you? :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/15/nspell15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/15/ixhome.html



Anyone have any experience with this? Opinions?

My spelling/grammatical skills are horrible(I got more questions wrong in the grammer section of my GMATS that in all other sections combined), but I think that it is an important skill.

edit: to clarify, there is no particular grammer section, but the english section is broken down into reading comp and grammer i believe(I took my gmats somewhere in early '98 so my memory might be hazy)

I can't believe that they don't mark you down for grammatical errors. When we take our district writing assessments, one-sixth of our total grade is based grammar and spelling (we have a six-point grading rubric).

Misspellings and abbreviations are not permitted in quarterly reports and memos in businesses, and having a limited vocabulary is definitely an obstacle to getting access to top-level jobs.

Having good spelling in a business is a good thing. But I was trying to say that in an informal environment, such as instant messaging, perfect spelling is unnecessary. Then the object to get a point across as fast as possible. Although this is bad in formal environments, its main function is fulfilled. I just believe that our language is more complicated than it needs to be.

I do care, thank you very much -- it's many of my students who don't. I could do an interpretive dance of the lesson on my desk in tap pants, Go-Go boots and a fringe halter top and their text messages, iPods, and video game magazine would still be their top priority. (See, I can generalize too.)

I'm not saying you don't care. I'm saying some do not. There is only one teacher to every 30 students and eventually a few students can overthrow a teacher. Five students against learning can destroy a learning environment for the whole class. Like I said that is from my own experience from high school, its not generalization. Just walk into a Unified 1 Math classroom and you will see... If a student gets stuck in that class it IS impossible to go higher. The pace is too slow to get to more advanced classes, first you have to go through Unified 2, Integrated 2, Trig, then finally to Pre-calculus.

Also, the general structure of an essay does not change -- they should be 4-5 paragraphs long, each paragraph should consist of a topic sentence and a minimum of three details, and a transitional sentence to lead you into the next paragraph

That is not true. Some teachers like 11-12 sentence paragraphs. Some teachers say the wording has to be utterly 'concise' (class I just had). Some do not want transitional sentences at end of paragraphs, instead they want it all to point to the central thesis. I have experience in such matters.

Yes. Vocabulary is evil. Heaven forbid we know how to articulate our ideas in different ways.

I meant that more time should be spent on the correct usage of grammar and the spelling of already learned words; instead of learning too many words that are incorrectly used.

You wouldn't use a sledgehammer to turn a bolt, would you? :)

You wouldn't use a $150 torque-wrench to tighten a bolt when you have a socket-wrench sitting next to you, would you? Sorry, I just had too… ;)

Nah, it's all good, Reverse Gravity. OMG, did I just use incorrect grammar? ;)

Seriously, I know what you're getting at -- the problem, as I see it, is teaching the difference between when it is appropriate to use simplified language in informal circumstances (I have a huge tendency to type 'prolly' for 'probably' in IRC) and when one must use formal language.

;) Of course I try to teach new and unusual vocabulary as well. Nearly every class I have had has learned the meaning of 'defenestration'. ;)

;) Of course I try to teach new and unusual vocabulary as well. Nearly every class I have had has learned the meaning of 'defenestration'. ;)

Opening, and putting them through, a new window on the obscurities of the English language.

Anyone can play an instrument. Why go through the unnecessary work of practicing until people enjoy listening to you?
Or for that matter learning to speak without the 'approved' accent. There is a fundamental difference between music, and the arts in general, and language. The arts have some innate aesthetic properties, language as a communication instrument, rather than as an art (poetry), does not.

Language is by far our most important instrument, and by not requiring correctness in language, we would be doing a grave disservice to our students. Misspellings and abbreviations are not permitted in quarterly reports and memos in businesses, and having a limited vocabulary is definitely an obstacle to getting access to top-level jobs. No matter how intelligent you really are, you do sound rather foolish if you can't master the art of putting together a sentence in your native language and/or the language you are trying to use to communicate.
As 'correct' spelling in English is a very recent invention (about 300 years now), it is appropriate that more attention is paid to those aspects of the language which truly reflect the ability to communicate, structure, grammar, style. If you go back to any English language book from 1750 or thereabouts, in facsimile copy, you will discover that spelling is not a concern. It became a concern with Dr. Johnson's dictionary, and was very much in vogue in the Victorian era. As we are now moving on from the industrial and modern eras, the obsession with obtaining an artificial and unnecessary homogenisation of spelling should be able to gently die away. What I am arguing here is that you are right in saying that one should be able to compose a written text which is meaningful and bears an appropriate style for the context in which it is to be used, but this ability does not require that spelling is standardised.

As a matter of fact, the laziness and the poor pedagogical practice of allowing younger level students to use invented spellings without correction is why I have high school students who write term papers that resemble the sentence I posted earlier. Does anyone here really believe that a college professor, an employer, or even a moderately educated person is going to look at that with any respect or care about the message when the form is a mess?

Well, I certainly care about the message, regardless of the idiosyncracies of the spelling. This may be due to my reading a lot of 16th and 17th century texts. As such I have learned that some of the most educated people in the history of the English speaking world, had their own ways of spelling. Read letters from Newton, or essays by Bacon, you will see what I mean. I do recognize that in some lines of business, tradition and conservatism are essential properties in creating and supporting the domain. Banking, Insurance and Law are the ones that come immediately to mind. If you wish to enter these industries, then you have to play by their rules. However if you wish to enter Stockbroking, or Design, or Biochemistry, what difference does it make if you spell a word in a variant style. None. The employer, admissions board, should consider the nature and demands of the position and or subject. Those that are in areas where formally correct spelling really makes no difference, should not use this as a criterion in their selection procedure. They should care about the presentation, in general, about the communication skills, in general, but not specificaly about the spelling.


Yes. Vocabulary is evil. Heaven forbid we know how to articulate our ideas in different ways. Also, the general structure of an essay does not change -- they should be 4-5 paragraphs long, each paragraph should consist of a topic sentence and a minimum of three details, and a transitional sentence to lead you into the next paragraph -- but there are many different kinds of essay: the reflective essay (analyzing a situation as it pertains to oneself), the persuasive essay, the thematic essay... there is no one-size fits all. You need to learn the proper essay to write for the proper situation.
Vocabulary, in English in particular, is the most powerful tool in the linguistic arsenal. However this does not mean that the spelling of the word is critical, unless it is to disambiguate the term. What is critical is an understanding of the usage of the vocabulary. When it is appropriate to use each term, when it is not.
I hope you are not serious about the description of the structure of an essay. This may be the case for 14 year-olds within a certain pedagogical scheme, but it certainly does not apply across the board.

You wouldn't use a sledgehammer to turn a bolt, would you? :) No more than you would judge a book by its cover.