Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Higher Education
Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University,
College of Languages and Translation,
Department of English Language and Literature
pelling Proficiency: The Effectiveness of Auto Correction on Saudi Female M.A Students’ SAdvantages and Drawbacks
By
Shaden Abdullah Al.Araj
A Non-Thesis Paper Submitted to Department of English Language and Literature, College of Languages and Translation,
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics
Advisor
Dr. Mohammad Hamdan
Jumada II, 1436 – April, 2015
ii
This non-thesis paper entitled:
The Effectiveness of Auto Correction on Saudi Female M.A Students’ Spelling Proficiency: Advantages and Drawbacks
Written by
Shaden Abdullah Al.Araj
Has been approved for the Department of English Language and Literature
Dr. Mohammad Hamdan
Dr. Abdulaziz Alnofal
Dr. Zuhair Zaghlool
The final copy of this paper has been examined by the signatories, and we confirm that content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work.
iii
Acknowledgments
In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.
Throughout the process of preparing my study, I have benefited from the brilliance, generosity, insight, experience and knowledge of many. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and thanks for Allah for the unmeasured blessings bestowed upon me.
I am far away from what I once was, but not yet where I want to be. I hope this study will be one of the steps I take to reach my dreams. I would like to express my sincerest thanks to my advisor and my mentor in life Dr. Mohammad Hamdan for his support, guidance, feedback, professionalism, genuine concern in my academic growth and exceptional patience. My extended appreciation also goes to the members of my thesis committee; Dr. Abdulaziz Alnofal and Dr. Zuhair Zaghlool for their assistance and valuable comments. All of the member of my committee are tremendous scholars, excellent teachers, and inspiring guides.
My deepest gratitude goes to the most interesting woman I know, mom especially for the love, support, prayers and for those laughs which kept me moving. To the inspiration, to the most intelligent man I know, daddy who has been always there for me. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to the amazing 5 sisters of mine and to my wonderful brothers.
I also thank my friend who stood by me, offered emotional support, reminded me of my dream and comforted my nerves: my one and only Muneera Al.Hudaithey.
Thanks also to the people who helped me throughout the process of my study; Khloud Al.Harbi and Shahad Al.Almai.
It goes without saying that I owe all these people a tremendous amount of gratitude and appreciation. Their interest and understanding in my personal and professional journey allowed me to reach my goal.
iv
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of auto-correction on M.A female students’ spelling proficiency. It focused on the advantages and drawbacks of this tool. The study answered three questions: How far does auto-correction affect the students’ spelling proficiency? What are the advantages and drawbacks of using the auto correction? What are the students’ attitudes toward auto-correction?. Forty students of MA linguistics department studies participated in this study. They were divided into two groups: experimental and control group. The study examined the students’ spelling proficiency by conducting a paper test and a what’s app one. In addition, students answered a questionnaire at the end of the study to address their attitude toward auto-correction. Findings showed that auto-correction has a positive impact on improving spelling proficiency of EFL students. Students expressed that it was easy for them to use auto-correction to learn spelling, it saved time. And it helped students to focus on what they were writing than on the spelling of words, thus promoting the quality of their writing. Finally, the study concluded with a recommendation for teachers to integrate auto-correction activities in language syllabuses and to be aware of how to use auto-correction and how to integrate it into the syllabus.
v
الملخص
هدفت هذه الدراسة إلى التعرف على فاعلية أداة التصحيح التلقائي بالنسبة للإتقان الهجائي الخاص بطالبات درجة الماجستير. ومن ثم
التركيز على مزايا وعيوب هذه الأداة. والتعرف أيضاً على مدى فاعلية هذه الأداة بالنسبة لطالبات درجة الماجستير. قامت هذه
الدراسة بالإجابة على الأسئلة الثلاثة المطروحة: ما مدى فعالية هذه الأداة على إملاء الطالبات ؟ , ماهي مساوئ ومحاسن هذه الاداة
وأيضا ماهي اتجاهات الطالبات نحو هذه الأداة ؟ . شاركت في هذه الدراسة أربعون طالبة ماجستير تخصص ” اللغويات” وتم
تقسيمهم إلى مجموعتين: المجموعة التجريبية والمجموعة الضابطة. تبحث الدراسة عن مدى إتقان عملية التعلم الهجائي وذلك عن
طريق الاختبار الورقي من جهة وتطبيق ” الواتس أب ” What’s app من جهة أخرى من أجل معرفة ردود الأفعال بالنسبة لأداة
التصحيح التلقائي. بالإضافة إلى ذلك اجابت الطالبات على الاستبيان في نهاية الدراسة لمعالجة فعالية أداة التصحيح التلقائي وموقفهم
تجاه تلك الأداة. أظهرت نتائج هذه الدراسة أن أداة التصحيح التلقائي لها الأثر الإيجابي على تحسين عملية الإتقان الهجائي بالنسبة
لطالبات قسم اللغة الإنجليزية تخصص ” لغويات”. كما أعربت الطالبات أنه كان من السهل استخدام التصحيح التلقائي . تقوم أداة
التصحيح التلقائي بتوفير الوقت للطالبات أثناء عملية الكتابة الخاصة بهن. بالإضافة إلى أنها ساعدت الطالبات بالتركيز على ما يكتبون
أكثر من هجاء الكلمات، مما اسهم في عملية تعزيز الدقة والجودة في كتابتهن. وأخيرا تخلص الدراسة إلى توصية المعلمين والمعلمات
باستخدام التصحيح التلقائي أثناء عملية التعليم وتعلم كيفية استخدامه وتفعيله في الصف وفي المنهج.
vi
Table of Contents Page Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………………………. iii Abstract in English …………………………………………………………………………………… iv Abstract in Arabic ……………………………………………………………………………………. v Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………….. vi List of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………….. viii List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………. 1 Background of the Study ………………………………………………………………….. 1 Statement of the Problem …………………………………………………………………. 3 Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………. 4 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………….. 5 Definitions of Terms………………………………………………………………………… 6 Limitation of the Study …………………………………………………………………….. 7 Summary……………………………………………………………………. 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………. 8 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Reviewed Studies ……………………………………………………………………………. 8 A Review of Spelling Errors ………………………………………………………………… 8 Spelling Correction Feedback ……………………………………………………………. 9 CALL and SLA ………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Word Processor ………………………………………………………………………………. 11 Auto-Correction…………………………………………………………… 13 Summary…………………………………………………………………… 15 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………. 17 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………. 17 Participants …………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Control Group ………………………………………………………………………. 17 The Experimental Group ……………………………………………………………… 18 Instrumentation ……………………………………………………………………………….. 18 The Pre-Writing Test …………………………………………………………………… 18 The Post-Writing Test ………………………………………………………………….. 18 Attitude Survey …………………………………………………………………………… 19 Material………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 Procedures of the Study ……………………………………………………………………. 19 Instrument Reliability……………………………………………………… 20 Instrument Validity………………………………………………………… 20 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………. 21 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………. 22 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………. 22 Finding of the First Question ……………………………………………………………. 22 Finding of the Second Question……………………………………………. 25
vii
Finding of the third Question………………………………………………. 35 Summary……………………………………………………………………. 36
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS… 37 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………. 37 Dissection of the Results of the Study ………………………………………………… 37 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………………………….. 39 Conclusion………………………………………………………………… 41 Recommendations…………………………………………………………. 42 Suggestion for Further Studies……………………………………………. 42 Summery…………………………………………………………………… 43 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44 Appendix 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 49 Appendix 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 52 Appendix 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 54 Appendix 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 57
viii
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviations Meaning
MA Master Degree
EFL English Foreign Language
ESL English Second Language
SLA Second Language acquisition
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
CALL Computer Assisted Language Learning
TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language
TELL Technology Enhanced Language Learning
ix
List of Tables
Table Page
1: Analysis of Variance of the two Groups on the Pretest …………………………….. 22
2: Analysis of Variance of the two Groups on the Posttest …………………………… 23
3: A Comparison of Pre- and Posttest Results of Writing Test Scores of the Experimental Group …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
4: Differences in the Posttest Mean Scores of the two Groups………………………. 24
5: Responses to the Survey (The Control Group) ………………………………………… 25
6: Responses to the Survey (Experimental Group) ………………………………………. 28
1
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This chapter contextualizes the problem of the study, formulates the research questions, illustrates the significance of the study, and briefly describes the limitation of study. In addition, the chapter provides definitions for some of the main terms used throughout the study.
1.1Background of the Study
English as a second or a foreign language (ESL / EFL) has been giving a very special emphasis by many educators and people with senior positions in Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia. There is no doubt about this special attention given to the English Language since it is the only foreign language taught in the country. Acquiring the four skills in a L2 is the overall goal of teaching English in the public schools and universities. It is important to enable the students to listen, speak, read and most importantly to write correctly (Al-Bureikan, 2008 cited Aldosari,1992).
Randall and Groom (2010) implied that in a historical speaking, teaching skills for second language learners (L2) have received a little attention in the last 30 years. The main emphasis was on the communicative teaching, which led to abandoning teaching orthography to L2 learners. This attitude toward teaching spelling to L2 learners possibly came from two sources – the notion that literacy skills are transferable from L1 to L2 and the perceived lack of communicative importance of spelling.
The relationship between communicative competency and spelling can be seen differently when it comes to L2 academic writing. English at Arab universities is used not only to communicate, but mostly for conveying academic knowledge, writing assignments, conducting research and projects, and writing exams. The educated university graduate who has studied most of her/his subjects in English should show the ability to spell both basic as well as academic English words (Szczerbik, 2010).
2
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
There is no doubt that writing is the most important skill that language learners need to learn as an essential part of their academic and professional life, that’s why teaching writing has taken a good deal of research that covers various aspects of its broad teaching contexts. Teaching/learning how to write successfully gets even more complicated and challenging for both language teachers and students when it comes to ESL/EFL environments compared with teaching L1 writing. The effect of feedback whether positive or negative is therefore a subject of great importance (Lee, 1997).
We can say that there is an obvious relationship between the communicative competency and spelling when it comes to L2 academic writing. The issue of the English writing system has been brought up by many researchers in recent years (Szczerbik, 2010) . As Cook (2004) explains, “The English writing system is connected to our lives in many ways, not something that is an ancillary to other aspects of language but vitally important to almost everything we do, from signing our wills to sending a text message”. Writing is a crucial act in the process of learning any foreign language, but more so in English since it is today the language of global communication. The ability to write clearly is essential to effective communication and critical to employment and production in the contemporary world (Abdul Rashid Mohamed et al., 2004). One important factor to take into account when discussing writing is spelling. In the worst case, one single misspelled letter can change a word and alter the whole meaning of a text. In the popular view, correct spelling is a sign of education. Conversely, bad spelling simply looks ill (Fagerberg, 2006). Students are required to write assignments, making research and conducting projects. There is a computer tool called “Auto Correction” that helps student in writing their projects and assignments. Therefore, when it comes to the exams, some students face some problems in their spelling. This emergence of CALL tool in SLA might improve the students spelling skill or cause spelling disabilities (Faqeih, 2012).
3
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
The major difference between spell checker, an older technology, and Auto Correction is that Auto Correction changes an error without the user’s permission, whereas spell checker alerts the writer when a word is misspelled. Spell checker then provides a list of suggestions for correction. Working with a technology that serves to automatically clean up spelling mistakes is a relatively new phenomenon, which requires negotiation because the process is automated. Many users of the technology may have no idea about the extent to which Auto Correction is changing their texts (Wood, 2014).
Our perception of Auto Correction’s skills may give the program too much credit. When users notice Auto Correction to be just as reliable as their own editing skills, they mistrust the program’s abilities to recognize and correct errors, which sometimes allows mistakes to slip through the cracks. If users remain aware of a correction program while they write, they may be more likely to catch mistakes and support corrections made by the program. Our attitudes towards Auto Correction may affect our perception of our natural spelling abilities. When Auto Correction changes a word without user interference, we sometimes neglect to learn how to spell the word ourselves. This may lead to an inability to differentiate between our own spelling competence and the typed version we see in front of us (Wood, 2014).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Auto Correction was not emphasized in many EFL contexts despite its usefulness in language learning. Furthermore, EFL students have spelling problems and their spelling errors are not corrected in non-traditional ways. On the other hand, researchers in the Saudi context revealed that students have false perceptions about feedback and do expect error correction from their teachers (Faqeih, 2012; Mustafa, 2012; Grami, 2005). It was found that the learners’ developmental level has much to do with their timing decisions.
This approach to timing presumes that feedback is plausible as it assists in integrating the language knowledge already acquired and in triggering new learning. There are many factors
4
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
that direct the selection of feedback target such as the learner’s developmental level, the effect of first language generalizations on the how the learner perceive and use the target, and the difficulty of the particular target. Shaping feedback is influenced by the learner’s linguistic and metalinguistic competence, the general objective of classroom instruction, and the aspired instruction outcome (Sheen, 2006).
Past researches and studies indicated that students get a limited benefit from the traditional methods of error correction despite the importance of feedback in language learning. In the Saudi context, Faqeih (2012) found that feedback during oral interaction of English L2 learners in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia were beneficial. Moreover, Mustafa (2012) reported that the Saudi students do not think highly of the feedback, and that the feedback they desire is markedly different from what they receive. From a socio-cultural perspective, the feedback practices do not adhere to the best practices of the theory, resulting in major hindrances to the students’ learning development. Furthermore, Grami (2005) revealed that that Saudi EFL student writers by all means desire and expect feedback from their writing teachers.
Therefore, the present study suggests a non-traditional method of error correction in a computerized environment where the learners are motivated to learn. This study attempts to examine the impact of Auto Correction on enhancing the spelling proficiency of EFL M.A. students in Saudi Arabia in terms of the problems associated with auto-correction and the learners’ preferences with regards to auto-correction in order promote the plausibility of auto-correction in Saudi EFL classes.
1.3 Research Questions
The study answers the following principal research questions: 1. How far does auto correction affect the students’ spelling proficiency? 2. What are the students’ attitudes toward auto-correction and its effectiveness ?
5
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
3. What are the advantages and drawbacks of using the auto-correction?
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study investigates the effectiveness of Auto-correction on the spelling proficiency of female students preparing for their MA degree at Imam university. It is significant for several reasons:
1. Previous studies have shown the usefulness of auto-correction in students` spelling proficiency. On the other hand, few studies have shown the negativity of using this tool in the students’ spelling proficiency. Therefore, this study will investigate the pros and cons of this tool.
2. This study is both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, the study is significant as it provides information about auto-correction and presents the empirical studies that underpinned its effectiveness in spelling proficiency. On the other hand, the practical aspect of the study is represented in how the second language teachers need to understand how to use non-traditional ways to improve the spelling proficiency of their students.
3. The study’s data about the EFL students’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of using this tool in their daily projects will be valuable to the educators to find out better ways for making progress in their spelling.
4. The result of this study will encourage the students and the teachers to benefit from the usages of this tool.
5. Finally, the result of this study will contribute to the applied linguistics studies by showing how auto-correction tool can be applied effectively in TEFL Saudi students classrooms to improve their spelling.
6
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
1.5 Definition of Terms
Terms adopted and are needed to clear understanding of the research include the following:
1.5.1 English as a second and foreign language (ESL/EFL)
Fox, manning, murphy, Urbon, & Marwick (2003), English as a second language (ESL) is English to people who are living in an English speaking country, but whose first language is not English. English is used formally side by side with the native Language as the case in India and Pakistan.
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is English taught in non-English-speaking countries such as KSA, Jordan, Venezuela, France, or China. The distinction between ESL and EFL is not always clear, especially in multilingual countries. English is used in schools and universities for academic purposes.
1.5.2 Auto Correction
Auto-correction is a kind of reactive feedback given to students when they commit errors while they speak and write in a computerized environment. According to Long (2007), reactive feedback that reacts to a problem is effective in facilitating second language acquisition; it distinguishes what is grammatical from what is ungrammatical; it adjusts the input to match the learners’ proficiency level; it draws attention to Inter-language gaps, and motivates learners to modify output.
1.5.3 Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) Levy (1997) defines CALL more succinctly and more broadly as “The search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning”.
7
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
1.5.4 Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
Al-Bureikan (2008) second language acquisition or (SLA) as the process by which people learn languages in addition to their native tongue and the factors that influence these processes.
1.5.5 Word Processor
AbuSeileek (2006) defined word processor as a computer program used for editing texts, checking and correcting grammar, style, and spelling errors.
1.6 Limitation of the study
This section brings to the forefront the main limitations of the study identified by the researcher. The main limitation relates to participants. Participants in the present study constitute a small number of MA students. The instrument was administrated to only 40 Saudi female students.
1.7 Summary
In this chapter, an attempt was made to contextualize the problem of the study, which was to examine the effect of auto-correction on spelling proficiency of English Language MA students in Saudi Arabia in terms of the problems associated with auto-correction and the learners’ preferences in Saudi EFL classes. The chapter presented the formulated research questions, demonstrated the significance of the study and its importance for the students as well as the teachers or any other scholars involved English writing. Additionally, an attempt was made to provide the definitions of the main terms used in the study.
8
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1Introduction
In this chapter, an attempt is made to define the studies on spelling errors in general. Then, there are some reviewed studies regarding spelling correction feedback, CALL and SLA and word processor. Finally, the implications of this review of literature and related studies in conducting the present study are discussed.
2.2 Reviewed studies:
2.2.1 A Review of Spelling Errors
Several studies in Spanish, French, Indian, Kenyan and Arabic have investigated EFL learners’ problems in spelling.
Mpiti (2012) reviewed a study conducted in 2007 by Wasowicz et al. and another study in 2010 by Hee-Lee to classify spelling errors of Spanish English language learners into three categories: mechanical errors (errors in punctuation, carelessness in writing, and confusion of letter formation in writing), phonetic errors (errors result from failure to use phonetic rules) and non-phonetic errors (include lack of knowledge of words). (Mpiti, 2012 cited Krishnalalitha, 2010) indicated Indian English language learners’ spelling errors were categorized into three main types: errors of competence, errors of performance and errors in pronunciation. (Mpiti, 2012 cited Joy, 2011) analyzed consonant, vowel, primitive, transfer and other errors in the written products of French English language learners.
Another study was conducted to analyze the spelling errors in the written English of Kenyan Pre-university students. This study reported four broad categories of spelling errors caused by the following: substitution of one letter for another, omission of letters in a word, addition of letters in a word and incorrect internal punctuation (Nyamasyo, 1994).
9
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
(Solati, 2014 cited Al-Jarf, 2008) the sources of spelling errors that ESL Arab college students make has been examined by which results as overgeneralization, ignorance of rules restriction, and incomplete application of rules also account for many errors.
2.2.2 Spelling correction feedback
Many studies investigated the effectiveness of different forms of spelling feedback.
Bosman, Huygevoort, and Verhoeven (2007) designed a study on knowledge of results and informational feedback to compare the effectiveness of the two different forms of feedback on spelling performance of Dutch Grade-2 students. In the knowledge-of-results feedback condition, the speller was told that the word was spelled incorrectly, whereas in the informational feedback condition, the speller was told what was spelled incorrectly. The results showed that both feedback conditions were equally effective in teaching students the spelling of words; irrespective of spelling level and spelling difficulty. Both feedback conditions led to a similar level of transfer to a set of new words, the effect being stronger in good than in poor spellers. Transfer was best on analogy spellings, followed by rule-based and worst on idiosyncratic spellings. The poor spellers learned the spelling of words more efficiently in the informational feedback condition than in the knowledge-of-results condition, whereas for the group of good spellers efficiency was equally large in both conditions.
2.2.3 CALL and SLA
A study conducted by Warschauer in 1996 pointed out that many studies stated the usefulness of CALL for EFL learners; EFL learners have positive attitudes toward using technology for learning writing and other language skills. In addition, many researchers stressed that CALL improves the skill of writing and facilitates communication and interaction between learners. Several studies stated that students have a positive attitude
10
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
toward computer-aided writing. Students enjoyed CALL classes and made major progress in writing (AbuSeileek, 2006).
Gousseva )1998) conducted a study on a computer-aided writing class. Students were
divided into small groups who interacted via computer. The aim of the study was to investigate their attitudes towards using computer-mediated language learning. Gosusseva found that their attitudes towards CALL were usually positive because they could see various viewpoints and improve the skill of writing. She said that students felt more comfortable in the CALL environment. She concluded that students of the 101 writing section focused on the role of computer-based facilities that were used in the writing class as means to increase interaction and share ideas with each other, while the 107 students outlined the importance of computer-based facilities that were used in the writing class as additional tools to practice
English.
Adair-Hauck, McLain, and Youngs (1999) studied the effect of using technology enhanced language learning (TELL) on the performance of college-level students in writing. The sample of the study consisted of two groups, the experimental group and the control group. Both were taught by the same instructor, textbook, and materials, the only difference is that the experimental group participated in TELL activities. The results indicated that the experimental group performed better than the other group did in the skill of writing. The findings of the study also showed that it was achievable and in fact desirable to integrate computer-based instruction into learning and teaching the English language.
Bulut and AbuSeileek (2007) reviewed a study conducted in 2003 by Greenfield, which illustrated that according to some research findings, students have a positive attitude toward using computers for learning EFL skills. For example, a study was conducted in Hong Kong among 10th and 11th graders that computer- based learning is enjoyable because they gain confidence in learning language via computer. They felt that the computer helped them
11
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
improve the productive skills, i.e., writing and speaking through developing their way of thinking and motivating them for more interaction.
2.2.4 Word Processor
Word processor is a computer program used for editing texts, checking and correcting grammar, style, and spelling errors.
Li and Cumming (2001) made a study to define whether word processing changes second language (L2) learner’s writing processes and improve the quality of his essays over a long period. They conducted this study due to the assumption that research comparing word-processing to pen and paper composing tends to show positive results. They compared the processes and products of L2 composing displayed by a 29-year-old, male mandarin learner of English with intermediate proficiency in English while he wrote, over 8 months, 14 compositions grouped into 7 similar pairs of topics between uses of a lap-top computer and of pen and paper. All keystrokes were recorded electronically in the computer environments; visual records of all text changes were made for the pen-and-paper writing. Think-aloud protocols were recorded in all sessions. Analyses indicated the advantages for word-processing medium over pen-and-paper medium in terms of a greater frequency of revisions made at the discourse level and at the syntactical level; higher scores for content on analytic ratings of the completed compositions; and more extensive evaluation of written texts in think-aloud verbal reports.
Studies in Saudi Arabia aimed at exploring the effect of using word processor on the development of EFL learners’ performance in writing and investigating their attitudes toward computer-aided writing.
One study was conducted by AbuSeileek (2006) at the Department of English Language and Literature, College of Arts, King Saud University during the second semester of the academic year 2004/2005. The sample of the study was divided into two groups: the
12
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
experimental group which studied writing via word processor in the E-learning Language Laboratory, and the control group which studied the same skill by the traditional method. Several computer-based techniques, methods and activities like checking errors were used to achieve the goal of the study. A test was made to find the effect of the experiment. Besides, a survey was conducted to investigate students’ attitudes towards computer-mediated writing. The results indicated that the experimental group achieved better results in the writing test than the control group did. The study revealed that members of the experimental group has a positive attitude towards using computer-based writing. Finally, the study concluded that the use of word processor was an effective method for teaching the skill of writing.
Rashed (2008) cited Cunningham (2000) conducted a study about the usefulness of word processor for learners. The data analysis showed that students found the computer-based writing class to be challenging and comfortable. The students believed that word processing helped them improve their performance in writing. They reported that using the word processor benefited them in concentrating their attention on certain aspects of their writing such as grammar, word choice, and organization. These results indicated that the word processor was positive and contributed to improve students’ writing abilities by increasing willingness to write and revise, and sharing ideas with others.
La Force (2009) presented research results of the 20 most common mistakes in students’ papers. The research was prepared by Andrea Lunsford and her partner Robert Conners in 1988 and was repeated by La Force. The two researches have compared the 20 most common mistakes of students over the course of 20 years. The research in 1988 showed that “Wrong Word” error was the fourth most common mistake whereas it jumped to the first most common mistake in 2008. Spelling error was not even in the top 20 most common mistakes in 1988 but it ranked as the fifth most common mistake in 2008. La Force stated that the first spell-checkers were developed in the seventies, but it became so popular in the nineties, with
13
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
the power of Microsoft Word. These days, there is no escaping from spell checkers. To conclude, we should ask ourselves, with this huge emergence of spell checker, should we be worried?
2.2.5 Auto correction
Peterson (1980) predicted that the popularity of spelling corrector programs would continue to increase with the growing demand for computers. He stated that, in the future, spelling programs would be an expected feature in all text-processing systems. He added that correction software would one day be able to differentiate between the uses of different spellings of the same word, like “grey” and “gray,” and would then be able to correctly apply a consistent version to all writings. He expected that potential spelling correctors would be capable of identifying incorrect punctuation and grammatical errors.
Peterson got that idea right, with the combination of computers and cellular devices into society, spelling correctors have continued to increase over the past decades. Spelling correctors at that time functioned along with word processors did not change errors automatically. Nowadays, auto-correction’s immediate editing exists as somewhat of an all-knowing digital eraser, providing users with correct spelling before they can even recognize the error.
Baron (2009) discussed a newfound familiarity with electronic writing and the changing face of literacy. At the beginning Baron stated that over the past two decades, our attitude toward computers and the internet has moved from suspicion to dependence. He stated that the digital communication is enhancing the human interaction, these new digital genres; email, instant messaging, texting, and blogging pose a continual challenge as we look for ways to evaluate the digital texts that we read and to make sincere the digital texts we write.
Harel (2010) listed 10 benefits of using auto correction. He said one of the benefits of being able to produce papers without any errors is another great advantage of using a spelling
14
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
and grammar checker. No longer do people have to worry about rather or not they spelled things correctly or used the right grammar. With a spelling and grammar checker, they can rest assured that their work will be correct. He pointed on people with learning problems that their paper assignments will be much easier as this feature will take care of their spelling and grammar mistakes.
Manjoo (2010) discussed the “thankless job” of AutoCorrect, as well as the ways in which the software may continue to advance. He believed that the society fails to point out the ways that the tool or the program helps them to avoid spelling mistakes. However, he did admit that the errors produced by auto-correct could be so dramatic that they often outweigh all favorable features of the program.
Clark (2012) conducted a study that surveyed the spelling proficiency of two thousand adults in the United Kingdom concerns the effectiveness of this tool/program. This survey consisted of two parts: a questionnaire, which asked respondents to self-report how often they use spell checker and auto-correct on their computers, smart phones, and a spelling test with five commonly misspelled words like “necessary”, “definitely” and “separate”. The result of this study showed that 20% of those adults scored perfect marks. On the other hand, only 18% of subjects reported that they used spelling correctors every day. He indicated that we cannot totally blame auto-correction for the students’ deficient spelling abilities, but there may be a relationship between the correction technology and the behaviors involved in learning. He argued that the basic problem is the students’ lack of reading, writing, and talking about how language works. The more the students read, write and talk about how language works the more literate the student will become. The less there is, the greater the temptation to rely upon a crutch which will not always be your friend.
Wood (2014) conducted a case study on five students between the age of 19 and 22. The study consisted of two phases: the first one, three writing tasks and the second one is a post-
15
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
writing survey given to the students. For the first task, each student completed three programmed writing prompts: an e-mail message, a text message and a Facebook status on their iPhones. Then each student filled out a survey to self-report their level of awareness of auto-correction’s changes. Data was coded and categorized into four types of changes. The change type was determined by analyzing video recordings of each prompt. Type B changes which proved to be the most common made when the student accidentally hit the wrong key, followed by Type A changes made when the student seemed unable to spell the word, Type C changes made as a result of incorrect capitalization or punctuation, and Type D changes which did not fit into another category. Four out of five students self-reported that auto-correction changed their writing over 10 times. The fifth student reported that auto-correction made 6-10 changes though the program had actually changed his work 18 times. His response suggested that auto-correction might be invisible to some users.
2.3 Summary
This chapter presented a review of literature that is relevant to spelling and how it can be improved by different techniques including auto-correction computer software/ program in investigating the effectiveness of auto correction on spelling proficiency. Such a review is necessary to lay the foundation for the analysis in this study. Several studies on spelling errors were conducted by many researchers to categorize spelling errors in different countries. Moreover, this chapter presented a study on spelling correction feedback which investigated by Bosman, Huygevoort, and Verhoeven in 2007. CALL or CALL tools have a great impact on SLA. Many researchers reported that EFL/ESL students have a positive attitude toward computer aided language learning. Students reported that CALL classes are enjoyable and comfortable. Word processor is a computer program used for editing texts, checking and correcting grammar, style, and spelling errors which were invented before auto-correction. This chapter presented several studies on the effectiveness of word processor on
16
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
EFL/ESL students and teachers. Li and Cumming in Canada indicated the advantages for word-processing medium over pen-and-paper. In a different country, AbuSeileek in 2006 reported that the students in Saudi Arabia have a positive attitude towards using computer-based writing. On the other hand, La Force reported that spell checkers have a negative impact on students spelling proficiency. The last point of this chapter is concerned with different studies on auto-correction. Since 1998, Peterson predicted that spell checkers would be capable of identifying incorrect punctuation and grammar errors not only spelling. Baron after a while stated that the digital communication is enhancing the human interaction. After these two studies, Hale listed ten different benefits of auto-correction on spelling. While Manjoo though that this tool has a negative impact on spelling. Clark indicated that we could not totally blame auto-correction for the students’ deficient spelling abilities. Wood conducted the last study presented in this matter with five students to investigate the different types of spelling errors made when using auto-correction.
17
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
This chapter introduces the methodological procedures that are used in the present study in terms of research subjects, instruments, treatment, and tools of analysis. It presents an account of the research method, research design, research tools, research procedures, and the statistical tools used in this research
3.2. Participants
The study comprised (40) Saudi female MA students majoring in linguistics at the college of languages and translation at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The age of the participants ranged between 23 and 30 years. All of the participants had studied English for a minimum of 8 years. They are studying their master program in Linguistics. The proficiency level of the students is ranged between upper intermediate to advanced levels as indicated by their admission test scores. The students were divided into two groups a control group and an experimental group. Each group consisted of (20) students. Students were randomly assigned to each group. This study was conducted during the second semester of the academic year 2014/2015.
3.2.1. Control Group
The control group consisted of (20) M.A female students. An audio (Appendix 1) was played to the students with questions about it. The students listened to the audio twice and then they answered the questions using their handwriting without any help. Then students were asked to bring their smart phonesdevices to answer the questions that were sent to them via what’s app application so that they become able to use the auto-correction tool. After they had finished the test, they were given a survey to investigate their attitude toward their usage of this tool.
18
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
3.2.2. Experimental Group
The experimental group also consisted of (20) M.A female students. These students were given six sessions in the usage of auto-correction and spelling. After these sessions, they listened to the audio twice then they answered the questions using their handwriting without any help. Then students were asked to bring their smart phonesdevices to answer the questions that were sent to them via what’s app application so that they become able to use the auto-correction tool. After they had finished the test, they were given a survey to investigate their attitude toward their usage of this tool.
3.3. Instrumentation
The study used qualitative and quantitative approaches to investigate the effectiveness of Auto correction on spelling proficiency of Saudi female MA students. The researcher believed that qualitative research is appropriate for this study because it would help to understand the effectiveness of auto-correction on spelling proficiency of students. The researcher used an online test and the close-ended questionnaire (Appendix 3). In order to collect data, the researcher used a pre-post writing test (Appendix 2) and an auto- correction attitude survey.
3.3.1. The Pre-Writing Test
A pretest (Appendix 2) was given to both control and experimental groups. This test was given to the students after they listened to an audio recorder twice. They answered the test or the questions using their handwriting. The purpose was to test the students’ ability to spell some technical words without any help.
3.3.2. The Post-Writing Test
A post-writing (Appendix 2) test was given to two groups to find differences on performance due to the treatment conducted on the experimental group. In this test, the
19
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
students were asked to answer the questions of the same audio, but this time they used their smart phones or devices and then they were to send the answers via what’s app to the researcher’s contact number. The purpose is to test the impact of the auto-correction tool on the students spelling proficiency.
3.3.3. Attitude Survey
A survey of 24 statements on the students’ attitudes toward the auto-correction tool and its impact on spelling proficiency was given to the two groups after finishing the writing tests.
3.4. Material
The material used in the writing test was an audio material. The purpose of the audio was to test the students’ ability to spell some technical words such as (onomatopoeia, monogenesis) and very simple words like (bark, Danish). The audio test contains information about the origins of language. The title of this audio is “Where did language come from?” The researcher got the audio from a YouTube channel called “stuff you’ve probably wondered” (Appendix 1). The duration of the audio is 6 minutes and 32 seconds. The researcher cut some of the sentences to make it shorter. The audio mainly speaks about the origins of language. The audio has only one speaker. It explores how humans first discovered their ability to speak and begin to formulate the first language. It presents a number of “invention hypotheses” that explain the possible ways in which language first originated in humans.
3.5. Procedures of the Study
The participants of the student were divided into two groups: a control group (N =20) and an experimental group (N = 20). A pre-writing test was given to the two groups in order to identify their spelling proficiency level before conducing any treatment. Both were required to take this test to spell the paragraph they hear from a recorded paragraph produced
20
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
by a native speaker. The amount of time given to both groups was exactly 30 minutes to write what they listen to. The recorded material was played twice for the students. The students’ answers were collected and analyzed according to their spelling mistakes.
Six instructional sessions were conducted to only to the experimental group students to introduce to them the auto-correct strategy. Students were required to talk about 20-25 lines citing the references in the due manner. The students were all required to apply the auto-correct tool in the activity given to them by the researcher.
After these sessions, the two groups were tested using auto-correct tool using their smart phones. The students spelt the same paragraph they heard from the native speaker. After the students finished their tests, their answers were collected and analyzed according to their spelling mistakes.
3.6. Instrument Reliability
Reliability reflects the degree to which an evaluation procedure gives consistent results each time it is analyzed. The reliability of the questionnaire was established by using Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of consistency coefficient. The reliability Cronbach’s alpha of all the questionnaire’s dimensions was 0.754. Accordingly, it was adequately designed for the participants and reliable overall.
3.7. Instrument Validity
The validity of the test was verified by submitting it to a number of linguistics professors who made their comments and the due corrections were made (Appendix 4). In addition, the reliability of the test was verified by the test retest method. The test was applied on five students two times with an interval of (7) days between the two applications. There was a higher consistency of results in the scores of the two applications.
Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. The researcher achieved the face
21
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
validity of the survey by submitting it to a number of experts and requesting their opinions on the suitability of the questionnaire to the research objectives. More than half of the experts conveyed, that the questionnaire was suitable for what it was designed to measure, the survey is then considered valid.
3.8. Data Analysis
The results of the study were analyzed according to the following tools:
a) The scores of the students in the pretests were collected and compared in order to determine if there were differences in their spelling proficiency.
b) The mean scores of the two groups of students in the posttest were collected.
c) The responses to the questionnaire were collected and analyzed by the statistical software SPSS.
d) The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA test) was used to identify the differences between the groups in the pretest and posttest modes.
e) Frequencies and percentages were used to compute the frequency and percentage of students’ answers to the survey questions.
3.9. Summary
The present chapter presented the procedures and instruments used in this study. A pre-post writing test and an attitude survey were used in this study to collect data from the research participants. Besides, the treatment procedures were explained and the data collection tools were justified. Furthermore, the data analysis was detailed with a hint on the statistical tests used in this study.
22
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the study. It begins by the results of writing the pretest and the posttest of the control group and the experimental group. The results of ANOVA were also presented before the test results. The mean scores, standard deviation, and t-values were calculated and shown. After the test results, the results of the survey are presented.
4.2. Findings of the First Question
The following part presents the findings related to the first question of the study that seeks to identify the impact of auto-correction on the spelling proficiency of MA female students.
How far does auto correction affect the students’ spelling proficiency?
Table 4.1. Analysis of Variance of the two Groups on the Pretest.
SV
SS
DF
V
F
Total
475.47
119
0.1
Inter
1.52
2
0.76
Within
473.95
117
4.05
In table 4.1, the ANOVA results indicated that there were no differences between the two groups before the treatment where the “F” value is 0.1, which is not significant. This result means that the two groups of students were, largely, equivalent with respect to their spelling proficiency before the treatment.
23
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Table 4.2. Analysis of Variance of the two Groups on the Posttest.
SV
SS
DF
V
F
Total
972.37
119
57.50
Inter
481.87
2
240.94
Within
490.50
117
4.19
As shown in table 4.2., the ANOVA results indicated that there were statistically significant differences between the two groups after treatment where “F” value is 57.50 which is significant at the 0.01 level. This finding means that students’ spelling proficiency has improved after treatment. This improvement is due to the new method (auto-correction) employed in this study.
Table 4.3. A Comparison of Pre- and Posttest Results of Writing Test Scores of the Experimental Group
Experiment
Group
N
M
SD
T
P
Pre-test
20
14.1
11.30
4.42
0.01
Posttest
20
22.25
Table 4.3. shows that the mean scores of post-test results (22.25) of the experimental group is higher than their pre-test scores (14.1). In order to analyze the significance of the difference statistically, t-test was carried out and it showed that there was a significant statistical difference between the mean scores of pre-test results of the experimental group when it is compared with their writing post-test scores. (T-test= 4, 42, p<.05).
24
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Table 4.4. Differences of the Posttest Mean Scores for the two Groups
Group
N
M
SD
T
P
Control
20
15.97
3.66
1.56
N.S.
Experimental
20
26
3.42
9.80
0.01
It is clear from the above table that there were statistically significant differences in favor of the experimental group. Students who were taught via the auto-correction strategy benefited greatly and their spelling proficiency improved. The p-value is the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed. In addition, the t-test assesses whether the means of two groups are indicating statistically significant difference between the two groups.
In order to support the above-mentioned results and show that these differences were
educationally/pedagogically important, Omega square value (Hewison, 1983) was computed using the following equation:
W2 = t2 – 1 / (t2 – 1) + N (N= the number of cases in both groups are equal)
W2 stands for Omega Square Value, [t] represents t-test value, and [N] is the number of the students in each group. Thus, the calculation is as follows:
= 95.04 – 1 / (95.04 – 1) + 20
= 94.04/ 114.04 = 0.82
The Omega square value was 0.80, which is very high. This means that the differences that are in favor of the experimental group are not only statistically significant, but they are educationally important and valuable as well.
25
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
4.3. Findings of the Second Question
This part answers the second question of the study that tried to identify the students’ attitudes towards auto-correction. Below are the findings of the students’ responses to the survey.
What are the students’ attitudes toward auto-correction and its effectiveness?
Table 4.5 shows the control group students’ responses to this question:
Table 4.5. Responses to the Survey (The Control Group)
S Statements % SA A NS D SD Mean Std. D
1
Writing is the most difficult skill to learn because of the difficulty to spell some words.
%
7.8
11.4
11.4
31.0
37.6
3.65
1.28
2
Auto correction can support learning spelling.
%
6.9
15.0
16.0
32.0
29.4
3.38
1.24
3
I frequently use Auto-correction to check my spelling.
%
9.5
14.1
20.9
35.9
19.0
3.59
1.22
4
I rarely use Auto-correction to check my spelling.
%
4.6
7.2
8.8
35.6
43.1
3.94
1.11
5
Auto-correction helps students to improve their writing skills.
%
16.3
32.0
17.3
16.7
17.3
3.13
1.35
6
Auto correction is a good way to get an appropriate kind of feedback.
%
21.2
21.9
12.4
25.2
18.0
3.03
1.44
7
Encouraging students to use Auto-correction is a good way to improve their spelling.
%
11.1
17.0
20.6
29.7
21.2
4.67
1.29
26
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
8
Using Auto-correction increases my confidence in knowing the exact spelling for many words.
%
8.8
11.8
19.6
30.4
29.4
4.40
1.26
9
Using Auto-correction has negatively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring.
%
9.8
16.0
21.6
29.4
22.9
3.25
1.27
10
Using Auto-correction has positively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring.
%
15.7
29.7
27.5
18.0
9.2
3.87
1.12
11
Using Auto-correction means I do not have to worry about my spelling.
%
35.3
45.4
14.1
3.6
1.3
4.10
0.87
12
Using the Auto-correction tool has saved time in writing messages or assignments.
%
26.8
34.3
21.6
13.7
3.6
3.67
1.12
13
Auto-correction is a good way for students to do their assignments easily and accurately.
%
25.2
29.7
11.8
19.9
13.1
2.52
1.23
14
Asking students not to use the Auto-correction tool is the best way to make them learn spelling.
%
8.2
15.7
17.6
35.6
21.9
2.20
1.28
15
I recommend other students to use Auto-correction tool to help them check their spelling.
%
7.8
11.4
11.4
31.0
37.6
2.38
1.24
16
Auto-correction distracts me and gets into my way when I write.
%
6.9
15.0
16.0
32.0
29.4
2.59
1.22
17
Auto-correction helps me to correct punctuation and grammatical errors
%
9.5
14.1
20.9
35.9
19.0
1.94
1.11
27
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
18
My teacher of English motivates me to use Auto- correction in writing classes.
%
4.6
7.2
8.8
35.6
43.1
3.13
1.35
19
I usually use Auto-correction outside the class to improve my spelling.
%
16.3
32.0
17.3
16.7
17.3
3.03
1.44
20
I do not know how to use the Auto-correction tool in my computer.
%
21.2
21.9
12.4
25.2
18.0
2.67
1.29
21
Auto-correction does not help me know my real errors in spelling.
%
11.1
17.0
20.6
29.7
21.2
2.40
1.26
22
Auto-correction does not support communication with my teacher and my classmates.
%
8.8
11.8
19.6
30.4
29.4
2.60
1.27
23
I enjoy using Auto-correction as it saves effort.
%
9.8
16.0
21.6
29.4
22.9
3.25
1.19
24
I am willing to continue using Auto-correction in the future due to its benefits for me.
%
15.7
29.7
27.5
18.0
9.2
3.07
1.24
Total Mean
3.18
Table 4.5 shows that the students of the control group showed that they have spelling problems and writing problems since they were taught with the traditional method of instruction. The mean score for the total responses of the control group is (3.18) which means that they appreciate the need for a new strategy to learn spelling, but their mean score (3.18) is less than that of the experimental group (3.87), as shown in table 4.6 below, since they were not exposed to the auto-correction strategy.
28
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Table 4.6 shows the responses of the experimental group to the survey after being exposed to the instruction by the auto-correction method. As shown below, the experimental group showed a more positive attitude towards auto-correction than the control group.
Table 4.6. Responses to the Survey (Experimental Group) S Statements % SA A NS D SD Mean Std. D
1
Writing is the most difficult skill to learn because of the difficulty to spell some words.
%
13.1
29.7
26.5
24.5
5.6
4.20
0.97
2
Auto correction can support learning spelling.
%
51.0
37.6
4.9
4.2
2.3
4.31
0.92
3
I frequently use Auto-correction to check my spelling.
%
22.2
32.0
20.9
18.0
6.2
3.46
1.20
4
I rarely use Auto-correction to check my spelling.
%
53.9
33.3
8.8
3.3
.3
4.38
0.81
5
Auto-correction helps students to improve their writing skills.
%
56.5
28.1
6.9
6.2
2.0
4.31
0.98
6
Auto correction is a good way to get an appropriate kind of feedback.
%
23.2
29.7
31.7
12.1
3.3
3.58
1.07
7
Encouraging students to use Auto-correction is a good way to improve their spelling.
%
46.7
40.5
7.5
4.6
.7
4.28
0.84
8
Using Auto-correction increases my confidence in knowing the exact spelling for many words.
%
43.1
32.4
15.7
4.6
4.2
4.06
1.07
9
Using Auto-correction has negatively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring.
%
36.6
39.2
8.5
10.5
4.9
3.92
1.15
29
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
10
Using Auto-correction has positively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring.
%
49.0
32.7
10.5
6.5
1.3
4.22
0.96
11
Using Auto-correction means I do not have to worry about my spelling.
%
35.3
45.4
14.1
3.6
1.3
4.10
0.87
12
Using the Auto-correction tool has saved time in writing messages or assignments.
%
26.8
34.3
21.6
13.7
3.6
3.67
1.12
13
Auto-correction is a good way for students to do their assignments easily and accurately.
%
30.7
41.2
12.4
11.4
3.9
3.84
1.11
14
Asking students not to use the Auto-correction tool is the best way to make them learn spelling.
%
51.3
35.9
7.5
4.2
0.3
4.35
0.82
15
I recommend other students to use Auto-correction tool to help them check their spelling.
%
52.9
35.3
8.5
2.6
.7
4.37
0.80
16
Auto-correction distracts me and gets into my way when I write.
%
36.6
32.4
15.7
12.1
2.9
3.88
1.12
17
Auto-correction helps me to correct punctuation and grammatical errors
%
30.7
39.9
15.7
10.8
2.6
3.86
1.06
18
My teacher of English motivates me to use Auto- correction in writing classes.
%
34.0
30.7
22.5
9.5
3.3
3.83
1.10
19
I usually use Auto-correction outside the class to improve my spelling.
%
25.2
29.7
11.8
19.9
13.1
3.34
1.39
30
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
20
I do not know how to use the Auto-correction tool in my computer.
%
8.2
15.7
17.6
35.6
21.9
2.52
1.23
21
Auto-correction does not help me know my real errors in spelling.
%
7.8
11.4
11.4
31.0
37.6
3.65
1.28
22
Auto-correction does not support communication with my teacher and my classmates.
%
6.9
15.0
16.0
32.0
29.4
3.38
1.24
23
I enjoy using Auto-correction as it saves effort.
%
9.5
14.1
20.9
35.9
19.0
3.59
1.22
24
I am willing to continue using Auto-correction in the future due to its benefits for me.
%
4.6
7.2
8.8
35.6
43.1
3.94
1.11
Total Mean
3.87
From table 4.5., it can be mentioned that the students in the experimental group have a positive attitude towards using auto-correction in spelling instruction as the mean score for their responses was (3.84) which is considered a high mean score. Below is a description of the responses to each item in the questionnaire by the experimental group:
Writing is the most difficult skill to learn because of the difficulty to spell some words. The mean score for this item is (4.20) and the standard deviation is (0.97). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
Auto correction can support learning spelling. The mean score for this item is (4.31) and the standard deviation is (0.92). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they showed positive perceptions about it.
31
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
I frequently use Auto-correction to check my spelling. The mean score for this item is (3.46) and the standard deviation is (1.20). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they indicated positive perceptions about it.
I rarely use Auto-correction to check my spelling. The mean score for this item is (4.38) and the standard deviation is (0.81). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that reflected have positive perceptions about it.
Auto-correction helps students to improve their writing skills. The mean score for this item is (4.31) and the standard deviation is (0.98). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that had have positive perceptions about it.
Auto correction is a good way to get an appropriate kind of feedback. The mean score for this item is (3.58) and the standard deviation is (1.07). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they presented positive perceptions about it.
Encouraging students to use Auto-correction is a good way to improve their spelling. The mean score for this item is (4.28) and the standard deviation is (0.84). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
Using Auto-correction increases my confidence in knowing the exact spelling for many words. The mean score for this item is (4.06) and the standard deviation is (1.07). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they showed positive perceptions about it.
Using Auto-correction has negatively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring. The mean score for this item is (3.92) and the standard deviation is (1.15). This
32
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they indicated positive perceptions about it.
Using Auto-correction has positively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring. The mean score for this item is (4.22) and the standard deviation is (0.96). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
Using Auto-correction means I do not have to worry about my spelling. The mean score for this item is (4.10) and the standard deviation is (0.87). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they presented positive perceptions about it.
Using the Auto-correction tool has saved time in writing messages or assignments. The mean score for this item is (3.67) and the standard deviation is (1.12). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
Auto-correction is a good way for students to do their assignments easily and accurately. The mean score for this item is (3.84) and the standard deviation is (1.11). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they reflected positive perceptions about it.
Asking students not to use the Auto-correction tool is the best way to make them learn spelling. The mean score for this item is (4.35) and the standard deviation is (0.82). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
33
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
I recommend other students to use Auto-correction tool to help them check their spelling. The mean score for this item is (4.37) and the standard deviation is (0.80). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they indicated positive perceptions about it.
Auto-correction distracts me and gets into my way when I write. The mean score for this item is (3.88) and the standard deviation is (1.12). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they have positive perceptions about it.
Auto-correction helps me to correct punctuation and grammatical errors. The mean score for this item is (3.86) and the standard deviation is (1.06). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they showed positive perceptions about it.
My teacher of English motivates me to use Auto- correction in writing classes. The mean score for this item is (3.83) and the standard deviation is (1.10). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
I usually use Auto-correction outside the class to improve my spelling. The mean score for this item is (3.34) and the standard deviation is (1.21). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they presented positive perceptions about it.
I do not know how to use the Auto-correction tool in my computer. The mean score for this item is (2.52) and the standard deviation is (1.23). This means that the
34
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
Auto-correction does not help me know my real errors in spelling. The mean score for this item is (3.65) and the standard deviation is (1.28). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they have positive perceptions about it.
Auto-correction does not support communication with my teacher and my classmates. The mean score for this item is (3.38) and the standard deviation is (1.24). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they had positive perceptions about it.
I enjoy using Auto-correction as it saves effort. The mean score for this item is (3.59) and the standard deviation is (1.22). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they showed positive perceptions about it.
I am willing to continue using Auto-correction in the future due to its benefits for me. The mean score for this item is (3.94) and the standard deviation is (1.11). This means that the participants estimated this item as being high and that they indicated positive perceptions about it.
The responses to the survey showed that the students of the experimental group were interested in auto-correction to enhance their spelling proficiency. The students expressed that it was easy for them to use auto-correction to correct their spelling errors and to retain the spelling of correct words, the free use of auto-correction to learn vocabulary was a great advantage for them, and that auto-correction could enhance their motivation to learn the spelling of words.
35
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
4.3. Findings of the Third Question
The next part presents the findings related to the third question of the study that seeks to identify the advantages and disadvantages of auto-correction as perceived by the students.
What are the advantages and drawbacks of using the auto-correction?
The findings of the study showed that the students were able to see that auto-correction had many advantages.
Auto correction can support learning spelling as it helps students to improve their writing skills. It is a good way to get an appropriate kind of feedback. It increases the learner’s confidence in knowing the exact spelling for many words. Moreover, it saves time in writing messages or assignments, and that it is a good way for students to do their assignments easily and accurately.
On the other hand, the students have expressed that auto correction may have the following challenges such as the ability of the students to use auto-correction in their computer, that auto-correction does not support communication with their teacher and classmates. In addition, students have reported that there was a less use of auto-correction outside the classroom to improve their spelling.
The findings of the study showed that auto-correction had contributed positively to the students’ spelling proficiency. The students showed that exchange or words through auto-correction played an important role in getting the students keep the learnt words for a long time. Furthermore, the students expressed that the auto-correction facilities helped them improve their vocabulary learning. Finally, the students’ responses indicated that instructors
36
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
should continue using auto-correction in the classroom instead of the traditional method of teaching.
4.5. Summary
The findings of the study revealed that auto-correction was effective in promoting spelling proficiency as it enabled the students to identify the spelling or words and to retain the correct spelling in their minds. Moreover, auto-correction was proved to be better than the traditional methods of spelling instruction. On the other hand, the findings of the study revealed that students found enjoyment in using auto-correction in that auto-correction was easy to use in the class, and that students were motivated to use it inside the class. Furthermore, students revealed that they had a positive attitude towards and that they are
willing to use it in all classes.
37
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Introduction
This chapter presents a discussion of the research results mentioned in the above-mentioned chapter. Furthermore, this chapter presents a conclusion of the research results and provided recommendations for better handling of the research issue. In addition, the chapter provides suggestions for further research.
5.2. Discussion of the Results of the Study
The above findings showed auto-correction had a positive impact on improving the spelling proficiency of EFL students. The students expressed that it was easy for them to use auto-correction to learn spelling. Auto-correction saved time for the students while they were writing. It also helped students focus on what they were writing than on the spelling of words, thus promoting the quality of their writing.
Spelling competency composes a challenge for EFL Arab students because of the dissimilarity between English and Arabic orthography. The evidence shows that EFL Arab students perform better in speaking and listening skills then in reading and writing due to difficulties in spelling and word recognition (Milton & Hopkins, 2006; Ryan, 1997).
In analyzing the sources of ESL spelling errors by Saudi college students, Al-Jarf (2009) found that the most frequent sources of whole word spelling errors were communication breakdown, interference from other words in L2 and partial failure respectively. The sources of faulty graphemes were the ignorance of the English spelling rules, transfer of the Arabic spelling system to English, the students’ mispronunciation and overgeneralization.
However, the phenomenon of spelling has been described to be more prominent in through computer-based environments, especially the online communication (Halmetoja,
38
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
2013). Nowadays people use the Internet for almost everything and daily interactions between people from different parts of the world are very common. In other words, different languages and language styles such as both informal and formal written and spoken languages, all over the world can be found on the Internet. In order to stay connected in online communication people need to be able to write fast and save keystrokes. Therefore, it is not uncommon for people to write exactly as they would speak (Gong and Ooi, 2008).
Considering these issues, it is only natural for automatic text assessment systems to apply auto-correction components. Many researchers have suggested that spellcheckers for L2 users need to be adapted for the particular patterns of errors that characterize each native language (L1), by studying patterns of interference and influence from L1 to L2 (e.g. Mitton, 1996; Mitton & Okada, 2007).
Therefore, it was suggested that it should be possible to adapt a spellchecker to cope specifically with L1-characteristic errors of English learners (Mitton, 1996). Granger and Wynne (1999) analyzed misspellings produced by students with several different L1 backgrounds and have suggested that it might be “useful to adapt tools such as spellcheckers to the needs of non-native users.” Mitton and Okada (2007) have demonstrated a successful adaptation of a spellchecker (oriented for native English speakers) to Japanese learners of English. However, adaptation to each specific L1 would require considerable resources. As noted by Hovermale (2010), it is not clear whether it is worthwhile to customize auto-correction for each learner population or better to just have one spellchecker. Results from our study indicate that it is at least feasible to produce a spellchecker that can successfully correct misspellings produced by non-native English speakers, almost as well as it does for native English speakers.
39
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
However, most of the studies mentioned above have focused on EFL students in non-Arabic contexts. However, the current study focused on the EFL Saudi students and their attitudes towards the auto-correction strategy. Furthermore, the current study used experimental study design in which students are divided into a control group and an experimental group. This difference gives the current study a distinction from the other relevant studies.
5.3. Pedagogical implications
Auto-correction is a new mode of instruction that focuses on improving spelling proficiency while giving students the space to pay attention to their writing mechanics. It contains a number of components that help students construct their learning styles from a dependent to an independent way with planning, monitoring, motivation, organization and self-regulation. Students profit from this effective, meaningful and self-regulated learning. They will bind their goals with a specific learning to advance their longer-term goals. They will show self-discipline, put work before pleasure, diligently complete assigned homework in class or at home.
Altogether, if EFL students’ writing skill can be improved by using strategies such the auto-correction strategy into practice in the context of writing; they will mostly benefit from meaningful learning and be propelled into multidimensional application in any realm of the educational field (Lee, 1997).
Auto-correction is important for EFL writing teachers themselves. EFL teachers continually need to reflect upon their teaching strategies and activities. Therefore, they must monitor and evaluate their own teaching and ensure that their objectives and expectations are met. Teaching writing should be shifted to account for the cognitive processes and strategies that are central in effective writing rather than an exclusive concern for the product which is common among Saudi EFL writers. In other words, learners should receive explicit
40
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
knowledge and deliberate practice in when, why, and how to use the general writing processes. The auto-correction method is a flexible way to organize a class for writing instruction that may be varied to meet the needs of EFL students and the amount of time devoted to writing.
This intervention is just a glimpse at what teacher-student interaction can do for students’ self-perception. Students should always be aware of why they are learning certain things and what strategies work best for them. Once students are aware of what good skills they already possess, their confidence will increase and their motivation to learn more will advance.
The findings showed that the students have a positive attitude towards the auto-correction strategy and that their spelling proficiency has been improved with the help of auto-correction. The students have reported that auto-correction help them to minimize their spelling errors and to write the words in the correct manner. In addition, auto-correction was shown to be motivating and interesting to the students. Auto-correction was proved to be better than the instructional methods of teaching spelling.
The findings of the study help curriculum designers take into consideration students’ needs and interests in designing their curriculum. Students who are studying English as a foreign language can be helped to develop writing competence by working on the attitudes and skills associated with writing competence based on adopting new technological techniques such as auto correction. Universities and language programs might consider developing programs, courses, or workshops that address the elements of spelling competence by integrating auto-correction technology systems. Developing spelling proficiency and learning the appropriate ways of interaction and communication within a writing class are skills that can be better learned and enhanced by integrating auto-correction technology programs.
41
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
The findings of the study open the minds of curriculum planners and designers to different approaches to the teaching of spelling through the integration of auto-correction technology programs. Students should insert auto-correction activities in writing syllabuses in all stages so that students become well trained on correction of mistakes and misspellings.
Furthermore, there are implications for language programs, colleges, and universities as well. The significance of writing is that writing contributes to success in a changing world rich with knowledge (Wright, 1987). Language programs and universities might consider helping faculty members learn about ways in which they might coach their students into developing better writing skills.
5.4. Conclusion
1. Students exposed to auto-correction showed that their spelling proficiency was improved due to this strategy.
2. Teaching writing using auto-correction could be an effective approach for L2 learners to learn productively and efficiently. Students expressed great appreciation and satisfaction with auto-correction.
3. Auto correction helped students improve their linguistic skills such as learning the spelling of words and keeping words in minds for a long period.
4. Students developed a positive attitude towards the auto-correction strategy due its benefits in improving the students’ spelling proficiency.
5. Students were able to view and correct their own weaknesses and to learn from auto-correction by learning correct spelling. These advantages are not generally available in traditional instruction.
42
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
6. Finally, this study provides evidence that auto-correction can be a valuable and effective way to facilitate language instructors to obtain better educational outcomes.
5.5. Recommendations
The following recommendations can be suggested:
1. EFL/ESL teachers should integrate auto-correction activities in language syllabuses in all stages so that students become competent in spelling.
2. Teachers should be well aware of how to use auto-correction and how to integrate into the syllabus.
3. Auto-correction should be integrated with traditional instruction in the classroom as a complementary to it and not as a replacement for it.
4. Students should be integrated based on their ability to learn, benefit and interact using auto-correction.
5. Using auto-correction in writing classes in order to have a proper instruction and to avoid misspellings.
5.6. Suggestions for Further Research
1. There should be a more comprehensive study on the impact of auto-correction on students in the secondary school.
2. The effectiveness of auto-correction should be investigated with male students to see if there are gender differences in auto-correction perception.
3. A study on the obstacles that face teachers and students on how to use auto-correction is recommended.
43
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
4. A further study might be conducted on the skills needed to use auto-correction in EFL classes.
5. The teachers’ ability to use auto-correction in EFL classes could be evaluated as well.
5.7. Summary
The above chapter has presented a discussion of the research results. The findings of the test and the survey for both the control group and the experimental group are discussed in light of the literature review. In addition, the pedagogical implications are presented with a conclusion to the research findings. Moreover, results-based recommendations and suggestions for further studies are presented.
44
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
References
Abdul Rashid Mohamed, Goh Li Lian, & Wan Rose Eliza. (2004). English Errors and Chinese Learners. Sunway College Journal, 1, 83-97. AbuSeileek, A. (2006). The Use of Word Processor for Teaching Writing to EFL Learner in King Saud University. Journal of King Saud University. 19(2), 1-15. Retrieved from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alhassan/DocLib8/.pdf. Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Youngs, B. (1999). Evaluating the Integration of Technology and Second Language Learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 269-269. doi=10.1.1.194.7022 Al-Bureikan, A. (2008). The Effectiveness of CALL in the EFL Saudi Female Students’ Listening and Speaking Skills at the College of Health Sciences, Onaizah. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, King Saud University.
Al Jarf, R. (2009). Phonological and Orthographic Problems in EFL College Spelling. First Regional Conference on English Language Teaching and Literature (ELTL1) at Islamic Azad University, Iran. Baron, D. (2009). A better pencil: Readers, writers, and the digital revolution (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bosman, A., Huygevoort, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Spelling feedback in an ICT- learning environment: Issues of proficiency, training efficiency, and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 45 (6), 341-361. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures. Bulut, D., & AbuSeileek, A. (2007.). Learner Attitude Toward Call and Level of Achievement in Basic Language Skills. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: King Saud University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/7958.
45
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Clark, L. (2012). Auto-correct Generation Can’t Spell Common Words such as “Necessary” and Separate. Mail Online Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Cook, V. J., (2004). The English Writing System. London: Arnold.
Fagerberg, I. (2006). English Spelling in Swedish Secondary School Students’ Attitudes and Performance. Karlstads University Press.
Faqeih, M. (2012). The Effectiveness of Error Correction during Oral Interaction: Experimental Studies with English L2 Learners in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. (A published Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/2602/1/Haifaa-Faqeih.pdf.
Fox, C, Manning, E., Murphy, M., Urbon, R., & Marwick, K. C. (Eds.). (2003) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (New ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
Gong, W. and Ooi, V.B.Y. (2008) Innovations and Motivations in Online chat. In S.Kelsey, and K.St. Amat (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer mediated communication, Volume 1. London: Information Science Reference.
Gousseva, J. (1998). Crossing Cultural and Spatial Boundaries: A Cyber Composition
Experience. The Internet TESL Journal, 4 (11). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gousseva-CyberComp.html.
Grami, G.M. (2005). The Effect of Teachers’ Written Feedback on EFL Students’ Perception: A Study in a Saudi EFL University-Level Context. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 2.
Granger, S., and Wynne, M. (1999). Optimizing Measures of Lexical Variation in EFL Learner Corpora in Kirk, J. (Ed.): Corpora Galore.
Halmetoja, T. (2013). Gender-Related Variation in CMC Language: A study of Three Linguistic Features on Twitter. (A published bachelor thesis). Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/33317/1/gupea_2077_33317_1.pdf.
46
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Harel, T. (2010). 10 Benefits Of a Spelling and Grammar Checker. Ezine articles. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com.
Hewison, R. (1983). Statistical Methods in Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hovermale, D.J. (2010). An Analysis of the Spelling Errors of L2 English Learners. Presented at CALICO 2010 Conference, Amherst, MA, USA.
La Force, T. (2009). Has Spell-Check Ruined Us?. THE NEW YORKER. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/has-spell-check-ruined-us.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL Learners’ Performance in Error Correction in Writing: Some Implications for College-Level Teaching. System, 25, 465–477.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Li, J., & Cumming, A. (2001). Word Processing and Second Language Writing: A Longitudinal Case Study. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 127-152
Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts in SLA: The Story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75–116 ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Manjoo, F. (2010) How Your Cell Phone’s Autocorrect Software Works, and Why It’s
Getting Better. Slate Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/07/yes_ill_matty_you.html
Milton, J., & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing Phonological and Orthographic Vocabulary size: Do Vocabulary Tests Underestimate the Knowledge of Some Learners. The Canadian modern language review, 63, 127-147.
Mpiti, T. (2012). The Nature of Spelling Errors of Grade Three IsiXhosa Background Learners in English First Additional Language. (Master’s thesis).
Mitton, R. (1996). English Spelling and the Computer. Harlow, Essex: Longman Group.
47
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Mitton, R., & Okada, T. (2007). The Adaptation of an English Spellchecker for Japanese Writers. Presented at: Symposium on Second Language Writing, 15-17 Sept 2007, Nagoya, Japan.
Mustafa, R. (2012). Feedback on the Feedback: Socio-Cultural Interpretation of Saudi EFL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback. English Language Teaching, 5,3.
Nynamasyo, E. (1994). An Analysis of the Spelling Errors in Written English of Kenyan
Preuniversity Students Language, culture and Curriculum; 7, 1; 79-92.
Peterson, L. (1980) Computer Programs for Detecting and Correcting Spelling Errors.
Communications of the ACM, 23(12), 676-88.
Randall, M., & Groom, N. (2009). Introducing the BUiD Arab Learner Corpus: a resource for Studying the Acquisition of L2 English spelling. In M. Mahlberg, V. González-Díaz and C. Smith (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Liverpool, UK.
Rashed, D. (2008). A Case Study of International ESL Learners’ Perceptions of Technology Use in English Language Learning: Writing & reading. (Master’s thesis). University of Maryland, Baltimore County, United states. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.sa
Ryan, A. (1997). Learning the Orthographical Form of L2 Vocabulary: A Receptive and Productive Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research. 11, 361 – 392.
Solati, A. (2014). Psycholinguistic Sources of English Spelling Errors. International Journal of English and Education, 3(2), 40. Retrieved from http://ijee.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/4.83201309.pdf.
48
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Szczerbik, M. (2010). Learning Lessons from Analyzing Spelling Mistakes. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1536459/Learning_Lessons_from_Analyzing_Spelling_Mistakes. Wood, N. (2014). Autocorrect awareness: Categorizing autocorrect changes and measuring authorial perceptions. (Master’s thesis). Florida State University. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm
Wright, T. (1987). Roles of Teachers & Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Appendix 1: Audio Test
Audio Script Let’s face facts, now let’s say that somehow we invented a way to travel through time to possible figure out for lunch came from still we are all about speculation on this channel this question is no exception. The first scientist is (Max Muller) a German philologist who came up with four possible explanations to how and why language began. The first of these hypotheses is (Bow-Wow): Which stated that language was just an imitation of other animals. If a dog can bark and a cow can moo, why could not you and I do the same? This hypothesis represents the origin of (onomatopoeia) – that is a sound and word form for those of you do not know- as the very basis of human speech that gave birth all the words after them. This hypothesis the most famous and indeed even Charles Darwin admitted to be the most possible. The next hypothesis is (Yo-He-Ho): An idea stating that language began as a bunch of rhythmic chance used to make labor organized. If you want to have, your friends lift that disgracefully ugly couch that you keep around anyway just because its sentimental value, out of the house you give the command (Heave – Ho) and on this vocal cue the couch be lifted off the floor hopefully off the curb where it belongs. It is possible this method of speech led to the creation of (March is chance) and perhaps the entirety of music as we know it. The third hypothesis is (Pooh-Pooh):
Imagine a version 1.0 of a Homo-Sapiens or as known as an early modern humans going out together to get some fruits for dinner, one of them rambles off the beaten path and steps on the line of the ground, a sudden pain goes to his brain causing a screen out of a jungle sound. This is the first swear word in early human language history.
50
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Finally, the final hypothesis is (Ding-Dong): Possibly the strangest yet the most interesting of all. Like (Bow-Wow) this hypothesis pins the origin of language unsound other things made and humans really adapted them. (Ding-Dong) goes a bit further though as it assumes that one time way back in our history, humans have supreme hearing compared to today. They can hear not only the sound animals made but also, trees, rocks and clouds as well thus; early man gave each thing the name of the sound it made. Though that seems ridiculous, some languages still carry this idea. The word for heart is (Tun-Tun) as known as the beating of one’s heart and the word from knife is (Ai-Ai) related to the sound you make when you could cut by one. Muller was not the only one who made hypothesis about language origins. However, in1930s (Sir Richard Paget) made one additional idea to tackle on the other four; The (Ta-Ta) hypothesis: It stated that the language simply arrived on scene by early humans making motions or sounds with their tongs somewhere we were able to figure out the could make unique sounds by mixing them with sounds that came out of our throats. Many hypotheses exist out of these five. We have to stop here because it turns out all the ones we just talked about the infinite other postulates we have are completely flawed and are likely to be untrue. The reason because humans are capable of lying. You see, not only the humans are the only creatures that can speak and communicate with a massive set of guttural utterances at their disposal but also we are the only ones capable of reasoning and thus build a manipulative meaning of these utterances to mean the opposite or something different entirely. Other animals cannot do this. As a saying goes words are cheap in order for their existence and meaning to come about each person who uses them had to trust that particular word meant that particular thing. In fact, some philologists postulate that humans needed to lie in order to speak because that was
51
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
the only way they can deceive another human through (doubting) meeting. There is a well-regarded hypothesis in linguistics called monogenesis; or the idea that once upon a time there exist a single universal language. Was just a separation migration of humans to various areas of the globe languages all the different ways or some of that the cost mass confusion costly to a (plethora of language) is an incident. These hypothesizes raise an interesting question; What was that original language?. For years scholars in linguist searching for the answer and really seems that they are bickering it is all a matter of pride. German researchers say it was German Romantic say it was Latin and one Swedish linguist said the God of the Bible spoke Swedish, and Adam spoke Danish, and evil-serving naturally spoke French. To be scientific for the best guess we have is probably one constructed by (Sir William Jones ) and edited by researchers over many years called; (Proto-Indo- European). This language combines all the basic building blocks of nearly every language to create this primordial “Hzowis” of spoken words. The best and most editing example of Proto-Indo- European is “Scheiches’s fable” which is created as a sample to test the inner workings of the language. The most recent edit was made in 2013 and is probably still being edited to this day it seems researchers can’t quite agree but when you’re trying to turn the rubble into a tower again it’s down to take a while.
52
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Appendix 2: Test
(pre-test and posttest)
Dear participant,
This study aims at exploring the attitudes of the M.A students majoring in linguistics at Al-Imam University of auto correction effectiveness on spelling; its advantages and its drawbacks.
Please be informed that the data collected will only be used for the purposes of the current research, and consequently will not be used to evaluate you. We highly appreciate your cooperation and your honest responses. You are kindly requested to fill out this questionnaire and return it to the researcher.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The researcher
Shaden Al.Araj
53
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
After listening to the recorded audio, kindly answer the following questions with the correct spelling:
Q1: Fill in the blanks with the correct answer
a- Onomatopoeia is defined as words which sound like they are.
b- The existence of one universal language is monogenesis.
c- A dog can bark and a cow can moo.
d- According to Swedish, Adam spoke Danish.
e- Proto-Indo-European is the best answer to the question what was the original language?
Q2: Give a title to the recorded audio:
Major Hypotheses about the Origin of Language.
Q3: Briefly, summarize what you understand from the audio.
( Depends on the students’ answers)
The audio is an overview of the major hypotheses about the origin of human language. The speaker advances a number of theories formulated by philologists to explain how human verbal communication initially emerged. Four major hypotheses are put forth, in addition to a number of hypothetical claims by modern linguists:
Hypothesis1: Human language originated from imitating animal sounds (onomatopoeia). This is supported by the Darwinist evolutionary hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Human language emerged as a result of frequent rhythmic chants which used to accompany human labor in order to make work more organized.
Hypothesis 3: Use of expletives and swear words originated in the communicative signals emitted by homo sapiens performing fruit-picking activities
Hypothesis 4: Humans’ supreme hearing capacity allowed them to take up a set of verbal signals from animal behavior as well as sounds produced by natural entities (rocks, oceans, etc.).
Other hypotheses about the origin of human language were also cited in the audio, including the theory of truth manipulation (to use language to lie). The Proto-Indo-European ancestral language was finally advanced as the most plausible hypothesis.
54
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Appendix 3: Questionnaire
Student Questionnaire (Experimental and control group)
Dear participant,
This study aims at exploring the attitudes of the M.A students majoring in linguistics at Al-Imam University of auto correction effectiveness on spelling: its advantages and its drawbacks.
Please be informed that the data collected will only be used for the purposes of the current research, and consequently will not be used to evaluate you. I highly appreciate your cooperation and your honest responses.
You are kindly requested to fill out this questionnaire and return it to the researcher.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The researcher
Shaden A.lAraj
55
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Statement Disagree Strongly disagree
Disagree Not decided Agree Strongly agree 1. Writing is the most difficult skill to learn because of the difficulty to spell some words. 2. Auto correction can support learning spelling.
3. I frequently use Auto-correction to check my spelling.
4. I rarely use Auto-correction to check my spelling.
5. Auto-correction helps students to improve their writing skills. 6. Auto correction is a good way to get an appropriate kind of feedback. 7. Encouraging students to use Auto-correction is a good way to improve their spelling. 8. Using Auto-correction increases my confidence in knowing the exact spelling for many words. 9. Using Auto-correction has negatively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring.
10. Using Auto-correction has positively affected my spelling when coming to hand wring.
11. Using Auto-correction means I do not have to worry about my spelling. 12. Using the Auto-correction tool has saved time in writing messages or assignments. 13. Auto-correction is a good way for students to do their assignments easily and accurately.
14. Asking students not to use the Auto-correction tool is the best way to make them learn spelling. 15. I recommend other students to use Auto-correction tool to help them check their spelling.
16. Auto-correction distracts me and gets into my way when I write. 17. Auto-correction helps me to correct punctuation and grammatical errors.
56
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
Thank You
18. My teacher of English motivates me to use Auto- correction in writing classes. 19. I usually use Auto-correction outside the class to improve my spelling. 20. I do not know how to use the Auto-correction tool in my computer. 21. Auto-correction does not help me know my real errors in spelling. 22. Auto-correction does not support communication with my teacher and my classmates. 23. I enjoy using Auto-correction as it saves effort.
24. I am willing to continue using Auto-correction in the future due to its benefits for me.
57
EFFECTIVNESS OF AUTOCORRECTION ON SPELLING PROFICIENCY
4Appendix ArbitratorsList of
Dr.Azmi Adeal
Professor at the college of languages and translation at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dr.azadyo@yahoo.com Dr. Faysal Maalej
Professor at the college of languages and translation at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Maalejfc@gnet.tn Dr.Imed Bouslam
Professor at the college of languages and translation at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Imedbouslama64@gmail.com
Dr. Zuhair Zaghloul
Professor at the college of languages and translation at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Zaghlool63@yahoo.com
Our Service Charter
-
Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-Free
We employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers. -
Free Revisions
We keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed. -
Confidentiality / 100% No Disclosure
We make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service. -
Money Back Guarantee
If the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit. -
24/7 Customer Support
We have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.