Upload
devin
View
35
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Linda Borger Department of Education , University of Gothenburg. ESL Students and Generic Spell and Grammar Checkers in CALL. Outline. Background, purpose of study and research questions Method and procedure Classification of errors Study participants Results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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 list
sade (said)
Student does something elseresturange – resturante - restaurant
Results: Learner responsesGrammar 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!