Technocomplacency: the spellchecker and learning.

Abstract

Is the electronic spellchecker a bane or a blessing? [1] This article discusses the emerging technology-engendered problem of complacency and its impact on conventional spelling and, by extension, on learning and information provision in libraries. Since this identified phenomenon is largely behavioral, sustained pedagogical remediation efforts are reiterated.

Introduction

The current technological revolution, and concomitant fluency, has produced some delineated socio-pedagogical and, specifically, library and information science (LIS), problems that are generating inevitable public discourse. Observers have been discussing, among other things, the ethical issue of cyber-plagiarism; that is, cribbing without attributing (Royce 2003; Scanlon 2003; Simmonds 2003; Willis 2001), technostress (Brod 1984; Kupersmith 1992; Van Fleet & Wallace 2003; Wallace & Van Fleet 2001) and the psychological impact of information technology as manifested in technophobia (Jensen, Guttschow, & Hill 2002). Another engaging topic society has been grappling with is the well-documented problem, again, traceable to automation--the spellchecker feature of some common electronic software, such as word processors, and the inevitable impact this is having on the presentation of facts and the strict adherence to orthographic conventions and, generally, on the teaching/learning transaction. [2] While various individuals and groups alike, such as schools and libraries, are grappling with this emerged phenomenon of cyber-plagiarism, the highlighted stubborn technology-engendered complacency problem is raging. This is the delineated technocomplacency phenomenon. The following dictionary (Webster's New World College Dictionary 2001) definition of "complacency" sets the framework for this article: "quiet satisfaction; contentment; often, specif., self-satisfaction, or smugness." The operative word "complacency" is deliberately chosen because that highlights, as indicated, the thrust of this cautionary article from the foci of, generally, teaching and learning and, specifically, libraries. As Reinking (1997) reiterated, technological change has, undoubtedly, affected reading and writing. The societal pervasiveness of technocomplacency is evident in such familiar expressions as: "How did we manage without the microwave oven?" "Oh, the TV remote control is such a blessing!" Has technology engendered, albeit inadvertently, complacency?

Flashback context

At this juncture, I would like to traverse that proverbial memory lane by dredging up a significant aspect of my life as an English as a Second Language (ESL) learner in my native country. I vividly remember my younger days in the Presbyterian initial school system and the traumatic sting of spelling bee and "English dictation" sessions. We, the young learners, were always justifiably scared of these almost weekly sessions because of the legendary Presbyterian school punishment of caning, if one made mistakes. Being a confirmed sissy, I always made sure I learned, and duly revised, the assigned words before I went to school to face those distressing sessions. Unsurprisingly, we of that "dictation" era instinctively acquired the habit of manually checking our spelling before handing in written assignments. There was no automated spellchecker to squiggly-underline mistakes. In sum, there simply was no room for smugness and, inescapably, careful manual editing was the inculcated order of the day. That is the ideal behavioral aspect.

On spelling illogicality and simplification moves

Mentioned above were the factors of orthographic compliance and the ideal utmost preparedness of a spelling bee and dictation participant. Concomitantly, the relevant literature, both popular and scholarly, is replete with the problematic nature of English spelling and sustained moves to simplify it. For example, Rondthaler, writing about spelling reform in a popular literature source, highlights the problematic nature of current standardized English spelling as he rails against the prevailing illogicality that, unfortunately, has spawned illiteracy and its inevitable social "disastrous byproducts" such as dropouts, juvenile delinquency, and widespread crime. In advocating remedial phonetic spelling he faults Samuel Johnson, the pioneer lexicographer, for his "clumsy mandate" with regard to orthographic standardization and its attendant irritating compliance. The following quote aptly sums up the writer's stand and also encapsulates the problematic nature of current English orthography:

      Nobody cared until teachers in one-room schoolhouses discovered
   that spelling could be used for memory drill. Drill, drill, drill.
   Never mind if the letters didn't match the sounds or didn't make
   sense. Dr. Samuel Johnson's big dictionary spelled it that way, and
   that was reason enough!

      We, alas, have accepted Dr. Johnson's clumsy mandate without
   qualm or question. It's so firmly fixed in our minds that we cannot
   conceive of changing our spelling to match the sounds of our words
   .... What's the logic? Where's the sense? ... Our spelling ought to
   be a mirror of speech ... (Rondthaler 1987, 9)

How do we remedy this glaring spelling illogicality and seeming irrationality? Like other predecessor spelling reformers, Rondthaler reiterates the failed remediation approach regarding what he calls the "visual word" but speculates that a dual approach, of having a reliable phonetic spelling for those who cannot memorize the clumsy "traditional" spelling, could be implemented. Despite the plea for a patently parallel spelling world, the writer rightly comes to terms, albeit forlornly, with the unrealizability of this parallel approach since advocates of standardized spelling " ... [are] telling us to love that crippled old spelling--to love all its aches, pains and rattles rather than to trade it in for a modern compact with a truble-free enjin." (Ibid.)

For many an ESL student, Rondthaler's obvious protestation against this linguistic vexation is not unfounded. Most of us, trying to be facile in a second language, have to grapple with this delineated spelling illogicality and built-in irrationality. Unsurprisingly, another writer, Messenger, in yet another reflective article, echoed this discomfort-cum-resignation. In writing about efforts by the eminent industrialist, Andrew Carnegie, in pushing for simplified spelling, the following introductory words corroborate the seeming illogicality of "traditional" spelling: "Did you no that still Jiunt Androo Karnagy spent hundredz of thowzunds of dolarz trying to make speling English simpler?" (Messenger 1999, 29) Carnegie's stand corroborates the theme of spelling illogicality other reform-minded individuals highlighted. Incidentally, he was not alone in pushing for spelling reform because other luminaries like Melvil Dewey, Mark Twain, Bernard Shaw, and William Howells also joined the crusade. Both Anderson's article on Carnegie's role in the simplified spelling movement, and Kimball's historical perspective on the history of spelling reform, highlight this fact.

This backdrop of persistent calls for spelling reform brings us to the present. As a student of the English language 1, like other observers, have noticed the pronounced deterioration in spelling. As a teacher who is required to pay particular attention to good writing techniques, the highlighting 2003 University of Pittsburgh study on the largely negative impact of the ubiquitous automated spellchecker was, therefore, not surprising. The gist of this seminal study, which was picked up by other media outlets worldwide, highlights some pros and cons of automated vis-a-vis manual spell-checking:

   A study at the University of Pittsburgh indicates spellchecker
   software may level the playing field between people with differing
   levels of language skills, hampering the work of writers and editors
   who place too much trust in the software. (CNN.com. "Study: Spell-
   check ..." [2003]; emphasis mine) [an unpaginated electronic work]

Undoubtedly, we all make spelling, and grammatical, errors at times thus the alerting function of the electronic spellchecker does help sometimes. Despite this appreciable alerting and correcting device observers have been bemoaning the persistence of spelling mistakes that can be attributed to "too much trust" reposed in this aiding device, It is this behavioral lapse that is at the core of the emerged technocomplacency phenomenon. The quoted opinion of a professor on this Pittsburgh study highlights this often-overlooked behavioral aspect: "Dennis Galleta, a professor of information systems at the Katz Business School, said spell-checking software is so sophisticated that some have come to trust it thoroughly. ... It's not a software problem, it's a behavior problem." (Ibid.)

In a decontextualized writing situation, which is most unlikely, a spelling/grammar check software might be of utmost importance but, in a piece of writing that inevitably entails context, this ubiquitous software has serious limitations. Another professor's opinion, in reaction to the same study, rightly illuminates this usually-forgotten perspective: "Richard Stern, a computer and electrical engineer at Carnegie Mellon University specializing in speech-recognition technology, said grammar and spelling software will never approach the complexity of the human mind." (Ibid.)

You want to learn English?

Read books, newspapers and watch TV! This is the age-old advice given to both native and foreign learners of the English language. Those of us from ESL settings are very much aware of this constant piece of advice from various sources--teachers, parents, etc. To acquire acceptable English writing and speaking skills one needed, and still needs, both formal and informal learning avenues. Unfortunately, as highlighted earlier, observers have been justifiably lamenting about the prevalence of both factual and spelling blunders that could be attributed, to a large extent, to technocomplacency. From the LIS perspective, both practitioners and students alike come to appreciate the importance of correct spelling in finding appropriate information in the provision of efficient reference service. The following familiar exchange faithfully captures the dilemma faced at the reference desk by even seasoned professionals and paraprofessionals alike:

John: How do you spell "obsolescent"? I've tried various ways without success. This English language!

Brenda: There's a "c" in it; but remember that the "c" comes after the "s": o-b-s-o-l-es-c-e-n-t.

John: Oh! There's a "c"? That's where I went wrong. Thanks.

This reflects another familiar aspect of the reference inquiry. This is the intra-system; that is, within specific professional or paraprofessional circles, reference service verification. I believe that many a reference librarian have been stumped by many a tricky spelling. A corollary of the above scenario is the equally familiar factual verification process when one is stumped. For example, when we are stuck trying to determine an established personal name we sometimes rely on colleagues: "Is the last name of this author 'A-u-s-t-i-n' or 'A-u-s-t-e-n'? I mean the Jane lady."

Katzian and other blunders

Who doesn't know Professor William Katz? Many a professional librarian, paraprofessional, and LIS student alike will be familiar with the seminal work by this acknowledged authority on the reference process. That professor Katz is held in high esteem is easily gleaned from reviews of his two-volume Introduction to Reference Work ... A biographical excerpt about him in his Dahl's History of the Book (1995) sums up his status: "He is the author of the standard text on reference services, Introduction to Reference Services ..." Almost all reviews on the various editions attest to the "standard text" status of this text. It is, therefore, no wonder that this truncated review on amazon.com (online vendors) aptly sums up the authority of Katz: "William Katz's Introduction to Reference Work: Basic Information Sources, 7th ed., can be justly called the bible of reference work.... The chapters are very well written and the examples are extremely helpful." With such rightly earned adulation, who would dare fault Katz? It is against this adulatory background that some glitches in the first volume of the 8th edition (2002) of this text caught my attention. Despite the fact that the preface (p. xv) of that edition opined that "The primary purpose, as in past editions, is to offer a lucid, accurate description of standard reference sources" and the fact that an electronic provision has been made "Updates to the text will be available on an accompanying website: www.mhhe.com/katz" (p. xvi)the text itself; specifically the first volume, does not pass the pudding-proof test. Katz strongly opines that: "... even expert evaluation may miss the obvious. Error is perpetuated in the best of reference works." (Katz 2002, 1:27)

Undoubtedly, this perpetuation aspect could prove deleterious when both LIS practitioners and students try to establish orthographic compliance and factual authoritativeness by consulting Katz's "bible." It is with this earned trust in mind that I am highlighting some unpardonable bloopers in this classic. Just imagine how some of the discovered glitches, probably attributable to the technocomplacency phenomenon, could have erroneously influenced many a reference librarian, and student, in doubt. If-it's-in-Katz-it-must-be-right! Really? I believe most of us are aware of the deceptive, and tripping, nature of homonyms in any language. In such a lucidly perspectival mode let us examine the following excerpt from the first volume of the 8th edition:

   Most reference works contain some dated information. The best method
   of ascertaining whether the dated material is of value and of
   checking the regency [sic] factor is to sample the work. This is a
   matter of looking for names currently in the news, population
   figures ... and almost any other recent fact ..." (Katz 2002, 1:29;
   emphases mine).

I believe you also might have spotted the highlighted problematic word. An electronic spellchecker will certainly accept both "regency" and "recent" because of their undisputed spelling correctness. As highlighted earlier, in a decontextualized writing situation these two spellings are correct but in a patently contextualized situation, like the above excerpt, the first word, "regency," is clearly inappropriate in a piece of writing on the central importance of currency in reference sources. This obvious reliance on, probably, automated editing gives us a classic example of the bane of technocomplacency. A clear manifestation of what the dictionary definition of "complacency" highlighted as" ... self-satisfaction, or smugness."

In reference to the revered status of authorities, and thus the baneful effect of unpardonable factual errors, Katz again exhibited some editorial lapses. In discussing the authoritative British biographical source--Burke's Peerage and Baronetage--and its significance, he had this to say: 'Jane Austin [sic] paid the ultimate tribute to the guide in Persuasion where Sir Walter Elliot "who for his own amusement" never took up any book but The Baronetage ...' (Katz 2002, 1:360). Austin? Somebody must have been watching the spoofy Austin Powers' movies at the time of writing and editing. "Austin," as in Austin Powers, the movie star, is certainly different from "Austen," the literary luminary although an electronic spellchecker obviously flagged "Austen" and duly suggested "Austin." Without belaboring the obvious, this factual, and spelling, blooper has the incontrovertible potential of confusing many. Despite the provision, and access to, electronic updates and the inevitability of a new edition, hopefully "cleaned" of the glitches highlighted, one should not underestimate the initial impact of wrong spelling and factual misinformation contained in this volume.

In continuing this revelatory trail, a recent online news item, by BBC's (i.e., British Broadcasting Corporation) Parkinson, had an arresting title about a young schoolboy who "has uncovered several mistakes in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica - regarded by readers as an authority on everything." Is this another instance of the delineated Katzian example of poor human editing? Again, is technocoplacency to be blamed for this unpardonable undermining of an authoritative tool? Although the editor of this quintessential reference set wrote back to thank the student for "pointing out several errors and misleading statements" could you imagine the impact of this blunder? Could you also imagine how many unsuspecting information-providing professionals, and general users, might have used these factual errors to provide reference service and aid learning? Obviously, reliance on such technological aiding tools, such as a spellchecker software, would not have detected these "errors and misleading statements." If gold should rust! It is opined that ignorance is no excuse for falling afoul of the law, thus given this monumental blooper are LIS practitioners, and instructors, liable to be faulted for dispensing flawed information through ignorance?

I also used Nancy Everhart's acclaimed Evaluating the School Library Media Center: Analysis Techniques and Research Practices (1998) in one LIS undergraduate class and discovered that under the subtitle "Evaluation Methods" (p. 4) the following excerpt again illuminates that obvious homonymous trip which, indubitably, will never be flagged by a patently decontextualized automated spellchecker software: "The various types of evaluation methods used in libraries can be categorized as questionnaires, interviews, numbers-gathering, and observation (Johnson 1996). These methods are complimentary [sic] and can be used in combination ..." (emphasis mine). "Complimentary" or "complementary"? Is this yet another instance of technocomplacency? Do we realize how confused students, and other learners, get when they are faced with such glaring homonymous glitches?

From the above monographic examples (i.e., Everhart 1998; Katz 2002) the complementary world of periodicals yields equally illuminating examples of the identified technocomplacency phenomenon. Again, other "visual world" avenues, some from recognized "high" places, are not immune from this spelling malaise. For example, the following embarrassing slip was reported in the online version of the Daily Kent Stater, under the revealing heading: "It's a 'priviliege' [sic] to graduate from KSU." The story highlighted the following: 'From now on, diplomas will need to be spellchecked ... December 2003 graduates may notice the word "privileges" misspelled on their diplomas.... "Privileges" was spelled "privilieges.'" (Di Lullo 2004) From the world of professional journals one sometimes comes across some head-scratching bloopers by acknowledged authorities. Professionals, and students alike, who have been following reviews of dictionaries are, probably, familiar with Kister's insightful writings. Surprisingly, I discovered another example of complacency in one of his writings, on lexicography, where a subheading titled "The lexographic [sic] explosion" caught my attention. The first sentence [3"A good number of factors account for this lexicographic explosion" D duly cleared the initial "lexographic" confusion. (Kister 1992, 45; emphasis mine)

"You want to learn good English? Read the newspaper often." This refrain, undoubtedly, reinforces the contention that consistently reading both scholarly and popular literature help in the acquisition, and retention, of language and the cultivating of acceptable spelling skills. Dilevko and Dolan (1999) studied, from the historical perspective, "the value of reading newspapers as an integral part of reference provision." (Abstract 71) They also opine on the "state of alertness" and "confident familiarity," with regard to world events, which accrue from this recommended newspaper reading activity. In reiterating, some of us, from the circumscribed world of ESL, gained an appreciable "confident familiarity" with correct spelling from reading newspapers. This "habit of reading newspapers and periodicals" is ingrained in some of us. lt is, thus, unfortunate that we are seeing this pervasive technocomplacency becoming entrenched in this popular medium--both print and online. I have been reading e-news about Ghana and, like other news sources, I have been spotting both spelling and factual errors. For example, the following excerpt, from a posted news item, on ghanaweb.com, on the arrest of an MP (Member of Parliament), demonstrates the importance of context and the identified limitations of the automated spellchecker: "Mr. Asamoah Boateng told JoyFM that people must differentiate the Police actions from governmental actions.... He said the Police have a mandate to ensure law and other [sic] at all times." I believe readers will agree with me that the word "other" is spelled correctly but is definitely out of context here. The following blooper, from a Hayne's story on Bill Cosby, spotted in a Saturday edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, clearly amplifies this complacency problem: "Some don't understand how us men can be victimized by women's words ... Some females can make accusation out of shear [sic] anger." Definitely, a trimmed anger is out of place here. And from a venerable Toronto, Canada, online daily [] the Toronto Star [] the following Rush murder story contained an eye-catching blooper: "Daniel Joseph O'Brien's body was founded [sic] with obvious signs of trauma ..."

I am also a keen soccer fan; therefore, I religiously follow Ghanaian soccer news. Another posting on the same ghanaweb.com site, about an international match, contained the following:

   Liberty has thus progressed on a 5-2 aggregate ... The feat was by
   dent [sic] of hard work ...The home team [Liberty] put more pressure
   on the Angolans and came close in the 12th and 16th minutes but
   again the visitors proved a hard nut to crack and managed to wither
   [sic] the storm"

From such "Withering Heights" of spelling bloopers another low (just punning), [3] and breath-holding ghanaweb.com report on another soccer match this requires a willing suspension of sensibilities !3 contained the mother of all bloopers: "Lyon's [France] Malouda and Carrirre came close in the first half, but Bordeaux managed to keep a clean shit [sic] until the break." Again, perfect spelling but definitely wrong context. A careful traditional human editing would have deodorized this statement.

Some Remediation Efforts

In addition to the highlighted efforts at spelling simplification, the literature is replete with efforts at helping the "'typographically challenged" (Henkel 2000, 36). Here, the electronic spellchecker mechanism plays, as emerged, a limited role in contextual writing situations. We saw the role the simplified spelling movement played, and is still playing, to help the orthographically challenged. A Carlson (2004) article sheds more light on this identified technology-induced malaise: 'The widespread use of shorthand and informal language in e-mail and instant messaging is only reinforcing bad habits in writing, he says: "You feel like you've got your red pen in your hand and you're circling the same things over and over again."' Another writer, Ediger (2002), also reiterates the need for remediation in correcting this problematic technocomplacency phenomenon.

Conclusion

Is the automated spellchecker a bane or a blessing? This article has sought to highlight both the benefits and limitations, with regard to orthographic compliance and the authoritative presentation of facts, and their unquestionable effect on learning and the reference process in the LIS, teaching, and learning settings. A writing-across-the-curriculum initiative, in both the formal and non-formal education systems, enjoins instructors to inculcate in students, and learners, the habit of correct spelling within the ambit of orthographic compliance. Some of us, as observers and teachers, have been lamenting the pervasive complacent approach to spelling attributable to the ubiquitous automated spellchecker software. Sometimes, as teachers, we receive papers from students who are obviously conscious of spelling errors they have committed when they boldly write "sp" in either the margin or close to the suspect spelling. The relevant literature calls for the need to intervene, pedagogically, to remedy this persistent phenomenon. Undoubtedly, English spelling could be both illogical and irritating but one cannot flout orthographic conventions and also persistently underestimate and, thus, disregard good manual editing.

Despite the illogical, and patently irritating Johnson's "clumsy mandate," and the hitherto unsuccessful Shavian and other moves for simplified phonetic spelling, the enduring understanding is the requisite "confident familiarity" with acceptable spelling. As a constant reminder to my students, I duly post the following caveat in all my syllabi: "Remember that the mechanical spellchecker of word processors does not recognize CONTEXT (emphasis in the original). It pays to do human editing." In reiteration, it is both pedagogically and professionally imperative, as teachers and LIS (i.e., library and information science) professionals, that we reinforce the unwavering need to beware of the generally decontextualized imperfection of the popular electronic spellchecker system and the problematic confidence it engenders. It is now clear that we, as professionals and educators, have a stake in realizing that this phenomenon signals a most intractable dilemma. It is, undoubtedly, a topic worthy of sustained attention. It is, again, abundantly clear that the pervasive mechanization tendency, an accepted fact of modernity, is certainly having an undesirable stultifying effect on teaching, learning and the provision of acceptable reference service. Could this behavioral problem be traced to curriculum deficiencies? Do we need a sustained remedial intervention, as some writers have suggested, for desired outcomes? Outcomes of impeccable spelling skills, which should, undoubtedly, go a long way in assuring an acceptable service at the reference desk and good writing from students.

Clearly, this is the demonstrable link between strict orthographic compliance and the assured realization of that service imperative credo that, specifically, defines the LIS profession. It should be noted, though, that concerned proponents of acceptable spelling are not anti-technology contemporary Luddites set against the indubitable complementary role of computers in learning. [4] Again, is this an intractable problem? For those allergic to frustration it is; for eternal optimists there is, certainly, hope through the time-tested teaching/learning reinforcing technique and, later, through, hopefully, timely remedial intervention. The guiding dictionary definition of "complacency" duly highlighted its disturbing "smugness" aspect thus the following serendipitously discovered washroom graffiti amply illuminates that persistent fact of the delineated technocomplacency phenomenon. Unsurprisingly, it also provides an apt summation of the identified behavioral aspect: "Kings [obviously a street gang] think they so bad then put these [expletive] on the front lines of Irack then let's see how good they do! Yah I know I spelled Irack wrong!"

Bibliography & References

Anderson, George B. "The Forgotten Crusader:. Andrew Carnegie and the Simplified Spelling Movement." http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j26/carnegie.php (accessed July 13, 2004).

BBC.co.uk "Luddites 1811-1817." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/geo_luddites.shtml (accessed January 25, 2006).

Brod, Greg. Technostress: The Human Cost of the Computer Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1984.

Carlson, Scott. "Professor's Web Site Will Cleanse Student Papers of Bad Grammar, Slang, and Misspellings." The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 16, 2004. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i32/32a03002.htm (accessed April 14, 2004).

CNN.com. "Study: Spell-check Can Worsen Writing." [University of Pittsburgh study] http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/03/14/spell.check.ap/(accessed June 10, 2004).

Di Lullo, Joe. "It's a 'Priviliege' to Graduate from KSU." Daily Kent Stater. http://www.stater.kent.edu/stories_old/04spring/22304/lTSAPR~1.ASP (accessed February 23, 2004).

Dilevko, Juris, and Elizabeth Dolan. "Reference Work and the Value of Reading Newspapers: An Unobtrusive Study of Telephone Reference Service." Reference & User Services Quarterly 39, no. 1 (Fall 1999): 71-81.

Ediger, Marlow. "Improving Spelling." Reading Improvement 39, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 69(2)

Everhart, Nancy. Evaluating the School Library Media Center: Analysis Techniques and Research Practices. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1998.

Ghanaweb.com. "Gov't Had No Hand in MP's Arrest--Asamoah Boateng." http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/browse.archive.php? date=2004072 (accessed July 26, 2004).

--. "Liberty Romp Pass Hapless Humbo." http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/soccer/artikel.php?ID=-56615 (accessed April 26, 2004).

--. "Lyon Move to Second: Great Essien Goal." http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/SportsArchive/artikel.php?l D=50819 (accessed January 29, 2004).

Haynes, Monica L. "Philadelphia Stands Staunchly Behind Bill Cosby." Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, February 19, 2005, final edition, Al, A9.

Henkel, John. "Spelling H-E-L-P for the Typographically Challenged." FDA Consumer 34, no. 6 (November 2000): 36.

Jensen, Murray, Gena Guttschow, and Marcie Hill. "Technophobia and Teaching Technology--Rich Freshman Science Courses: Overcoming the Digital Divide." Journal of College Science Teaching 31, no. 6(March/April 2002): 360-3.

Katz, Bill (William A). "About the Author." In Dahl's History of the Book. 3rd English ed. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1995.

Katz, William A. Introduction to Reference Work. Vol. I, Basic Information Services. 8th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Kimball, Cornell. "History of Spelling Reform." http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/histsp.html (accessed July 13, 2004).

Kister, Ken. "Dictionaries Defined: Buying Guidelines and Language Notes from a Reference Expert." Library Journal 117, no. 11 (June 15, 1992): 43-6.

Kupersmith, John. "Technostress and the Reference Librarian." Reference Services Review 20, no. 2 (Summer 1992): 7-14,50.

Messenger, Janet Graveline. "Karnagy and Speling." Cobblestone 20, no. 4 (April 1999): 29.

Parkinson, John. "Boy Brings Encyclopedia to Book." http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//l/hi/education/4209575.stm (accessed May 2, 2005).

Reinking, David. "Me and My Hypertext:) A Multiple Digression Analysis of Technology and Literacy (sic)." Reading Teacher 50, no. 8 (May 1997): 626(18).

Rondthaler, Edward. "Old-fashioned Spelling is Tufand Dum." U.S. News & World Report 103 (July 13, 1987): 9(1).

Rosen, Larry. Review of Technophobia: The Psychological Impact of Information Technology, by Mark Brosnan. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74, part 2 (June 2001): 249(2).

Royce, J. "Has Turnitin.com Got it All Wrapped Up?" Teacher Librarian 30 (2003): 26- 30.

Rush, Curtis. "Two Arrested in Slaying of Man." Toronto Star, April 22, 2005. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer=thes ... (accessed April 22, 2005).

Scanlon, P. M. "Student Online Plagiarism." College Teaching 51 (2003): 161-165.

Simmonds, P. "Plagiarism and Cyber-plagiarism." College Research Library News 64 (2003): 385-389.

Van Fleet, Connie, and Danny P. Wallace. "Virtual Libraries--Real Threats: Technostress and Virtual Reference." Reference & User Services Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Spring 2003): 188-191.

Wallace, Danny P., and Connie Van Fleet. "Virtual Libraries--Real Stress: Change at the Reference Desk." Advances in Library Administration and Organization 18 (2001): 1-44.

Willis, D. J. "High Tech Cheating: Plagiarism and the Internet." Kentucky Libraries 65 (2001): 28-30.

Ishmael Doku, Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Endnotes

[1] Thefreedictionary.com has the following definition: spell checker or spell.check.er [spellchecker] (n): An application within most word processing programs that checks for spelling errors in documents.

[2] One definition of "orthography" in the online Dictionary.com is "The art of correct spelling according to established usage."

[3] This is a pun on Emily Bronte's classic Wuthering Heights.

[4] Luddites: "In the face of industrial revolution, traditional home workers were threatened by new machines and industrial practices. In Nottingham, in March 1811, organized machine breaking began--associated with Ned Ludd." (see BBC...below)

Ishmael Doku, Ed.D. Assistant professor of library science