ESL Students and Generic Spell and Grammar Checkers in CALL

Linda BorgerDepartment of Education, University of Gothenburg

Outline

Background, purpose of study and research questions

Method and procedure Classification of errors Study participants Results Conclusions and further research

Background and Purpose

One to one computing Word processors – integral part of the

writing process Investigate effectiveness of generic spell

and grammar checker used by ESL-students

Investigate how students use and are aided by this tool

Research Questions

How many misspellings and grammar errors made by ESL students at the B2 level are successfully detected and corrected by a generic spell and grammar checker?

If a misspelling or grammar error is detected, how do students use the provided feedback?

Method and procedure

Short narratives based on a series of pictures

Feedback from spell and grammar checker in MS Word 2011

Recording using Screen-cast-omatic Stimulated recall session - student

commented on editing decisions

Study participants

Four students studying English 6 –B2.1 level, CEFR

Sampling criteria:willingness to participate in the studygenderproficiency level of English

One student at a time At a stretch

Classification of Errors

Spelling errors:Performance errorCompetence errorsSingle-error words and multiple-error words.

Ex. resturange, eachother

Classification of spelling errors

Classification of grammar errors

Results

120 errors

Spelling73%

Grammar27%

Spelling and grammar errors

Results: Learner differences

Results: Learner differences

35%

12%

41%

13%

Total percentage of errors per student

Student 1Student 2Student 3Student 4

Results: Spelling Errors

Per-for-

mance80%

Compe-tence20%

Spelling errors

Distribution of occurrences of performance errors

Distribution of occurrences of competence errors

Results

Grammar errors evenly distributed between categories

Results: Student errors detected by Word

Detected72%

Undetected28%

Errors correctly detected by Word

No False Alarms

Results: Student errors detected by Word

Detected86%

Undetected14%

Detection of spelling errors

Results: Student errors detected by Word

Detected39%

Undetected61%

Detected grammar errors

Results: Spell checking

Corrected76%

Uncorrected8%

Undetected15%

Spell checking results (including both single and multiple error words)

Spell-checking results for single-error and multiple-error words

Results: Grammar checking

Corrected39%

Undetected61%

Grammar checking results

Results: Learner responses

86%

11%

4%

Learner responses to correction sugges-tions for spelling errors

1st position 2nd position 3rd position

Results: Learner responses

89%

1%4%

6%

Learner resonse to suggestions for spelling errors

submits target wordsubmits wrong wordsubmits word not in the listdoes something else

Results

Student submits word not in the listsade (said)

Student does something elseresturange – resturante - restaurant

Results: Learner responses

Grammar Appropriate change to feedback in

100%

Learner comments in stimulated recall session Easy to use the suggestion list and find

the target word - Confirmed by the results Strategy for uncorrected words: rewrite

using one or two letters. Easy to see pattern – they often made the

same mistake several times in the text Strategy – make note of frequently

misspelt words

Learner comments in stimulated recall session Students aware of the fact that MS Word

does not detect all errors – but difficult to find ”undetected errors”.

One student commented on the fact that especially grammar errors are undetected

Difficult to understand explanation to grammar errors sometimes. Ex. ”Fragment, consider revising” and use of semicolon

Grading

Student 1 – 5 Student 2 – 4 Student 3 – 4 Student 4 – 4

Conclusions and further research Perfomance errors more common than

competence errors for ESL students at B2 level Spell and grammar checker effective tool –

72% of all errors were detected Spell checker more effective in detecting errors

than grammar checker Correction suggestions very helpful – In 89%

target word is submitted and in 1% wrong word Students express that they find the tool useful

Conclusions and further research Increase student awareness of strengths and

weaknesses of spell and grammar checker Give examples of mistakes that are

undetected by Word: I barely saw Sarah and Carlos for the rest of the week accept for one time when they where in a park watching the sunset together

Process writing and peer response to raise awareness of ”undetected” errors

More research on how students use grammar checker

Thanks for listening!