1. Linda Borger Department of Education, University of Gothenburg

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

3. Background and Purpose  One to one computing  Word processors – integral part of the writing process  Investigate effectiveness of generic spell and grammar checker used by ESL- students  Investigate how students use and are aided by this tool

4. Research Questions  How many misspellings and grammar errors made by ESL students at the B2 level are successfully detected and corrected by a generic spell and grammar checker?  If a misspelling or grammar error is detected, how do students use the provided feedback?

5. Method and procedure  Short narratives based on a series of pictures  Feedback from spell and grammar checker in MS Word 2011  Recording using Screen-cast-omatic  Stimulated recall session - student commented on editing decisions

6. Study participants  Four students studying English 6 – B2.1 level, CEFR  Sampling criteria: willingness to participate in the study gender proficiency level of English  One student at a time  At a stretch

7. Classification of Errors  Spelling errors: Performance error Competence errors Single-error words and multiple-error words. Ex. resturange, eachother

8. Classification of spelling errors

9. Classification of grammar errors

10. Results  120 errors

11. Results: Learner differences

13. Results: Spelling Errors

14. Distribution of occurrences of performance errors

15. Distribution of occurrences of competence errors

16. Results  Grammar errors evenly distributed between categories

17. Results: Student errors detected by Word  No False Alarms

18. Results: Student errors detected by Word

20. Results: Spell checking

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

22. Results: Grammar checking

23. Results: Learner responses

25. Results  Student submits word not in the list sade (said)  Student does something else resturange – resturante - restaurant

26. Results: Learner responses Grammar  Appropriate change to feedback in 100%

27. Learner comments in stimulated recall session  Easy to use the suggestion list and find the target word - Confirmed by the results  Strategy for uncorrected words: rewrite using one or two letters.  Easy to see pattern – they often made the same mistake several times in the text  Strategy – make note of frequently misspelt words

28. Learner comments in stimulated recall session  Students aware of the fact that MS Word does not detect all errors – but difficult to find ”undetected errors”.  One student commented on the fact that especially grammar errors are undetected  Difficult to understand explanation to grammar errors sometimes. Ex. ”Fragment, consider revising” and use of semicolon

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

30. Conclusions and further research  Perfomance errors more common than competence errors for ESL students at B2 level  Spell and grammar checker effective tool – 72% of all errors were detected  Spell checker more effective in detecting errors than grammar checker  Correction suggestions very helpful – In 89% target word is submitted and in 1% wrong word  Students express that they find the tool useful

31. Conclusions and further research  Increase student awareness of strengths and weaknesses of spell and grammar checker  Give examples of mistakes that are undetected by Word: I barely saw Sarah and Carlos for the rest of the week accept for one time when they where in a park watching the sunset together  Process writing and peer response to raise awareness of ”undetected” errors  More research on how students use grammar checker

32. Thanks for listening!