ESL Students and Generic Spell and Grammar Checkers in CALL

1. Linda BorgerDepartmentofEducation, University of Gothenburg ESL Students and Generic Spell and Grammar Checkers in CALL

2. Outline • Background, purpose of study and research questions • Method and procedure • Classification of errors • Study participants • Results • Conclusions and further research

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. Study participants • Four students studying English 6 –B2.1 level, CEFR • Sampling criteria: • willingnesstoparticipate in the study • gender • proficiencylevelofEnglish • One student at a time • At a stretch

7. Classification of Errors • Spelling errors: • Performanceerror • Competenceerrors • Single-errorwords and multiple-errorwords. Ex. resturange, eachother

8. Classificationofspellingerrors

9. Classificationofgrammarerrors

10. Results • 120 errors

11. Results: Learnerdifferences

12. Results: Learnerdifferences

13. Results: Spelling Errors

14. Distribution ofoccurrencesofperformanceerrors

15. Distribution ofoccurrencesofcompetenceerrors

16. Results • Grammarerrorsevenlydistributedbetweencategories

17. Results: Student errorsdetected by Word • No False Alarms

18. Results: Student errorsdetected by Word

19. Results: Student errorsdetected by Word

20. Results: Spellchecking

21. Spell-checkingresults for single-error and multiple-errorwords

22. Results: Grammarchecking

23. Results: Learnerresponses

24. Results: Learnerresponses

25. Results • Student submitsword not in the list • sade (said) • Student doessomethingelse • resturange – resturante - restaurant

26. Results: Learnerresponses Grammar • Appropriatechangeto feedback in 100%

27. Learner comments in stimulated recall session • Easytouse the suggestion list and find the targetword- Confirmed by the results • Strategy for uncorrectedwords: rewriteusingone or two letters. • Easytoseepattern – theyoftenmade the same mistakeseveraltimes in the text • Strategy – make note offrequentlymisspeltwords

28. Learner comments in stimulated recall session • Students awareof the factthat MS Word does not detect all errors – butdifficulttofind ”undetectederrors”. • One student commented on the factthatespeciallygrammarerrorsareundetected • Difficulttounderstandexplanationtogrammarerrorssometimes. Ex. ”Fragment, considerrevising” and useofsemicolon

29. Grading • Student 1 – 5 • Student 2 – 4 • Student 3 – 4 • Student 4 – 4

30. Conclusions and further research • Perfomanceerrorsmore common thancompetenceerrors for ESL students at B2 level • Spell and grammar checker effectivetool – 72% of all errorsweredetected • Spell checker moreeffective in detectingerrorsthangrammar checker • Correction suggestions veryhelpful – In 89% targetword is submitted and in 1% wrongword • Students express thattheyfind the tooluseful

31. Conclusions and further research • Increase student awarenessofstrengths and weaknessesofspell and grammar checker • Giveexamplesofmistakesthatareundetected by Word: I barelysaw Sarah and Carlos for the rest of the weekaccept for onetimewhentheywhere in a park watching the sunsettogether • Process writing and peerresponsetoraiseawarenessof ”undetected” errors • More research on how students usegrammar checker

32. Thanks for listening!