“Do we rely need tradisional spelling instruction when their are spell checkers?” : The correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition of the L2 learner

(1)

Degree Thesis

HALMSTAD

Teacher Education (Upper Secondary School) 300hp

"Do we rely need tradisional spelling

instruction when their are spell checkers?"

The correlation between spell checkers and spelling

acquisition of the L2 learner

English for Students in Teacher

Education 15 hp

(2)

(3)

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate in which ways spell checkers affect L2 learners’ spelling acquisition and whether or not they are suitable for educational purposes. A systematic literature review and a survey were conducted to retrieve data. Further, a phenomenographic approach was applied throughout the study. The results of the study showed that in order for spell checkers to function as an aid for the L2 learners’ spelling acquisition, the learner needs to consciously engage in explicit learning to be able to utilize the aid. Therefore, spell checkers require learners to use individual responsibility. The results also showed that spell checkers need improvements in order to fully function in educational purposes since current spell checkers have limitations as far as detecting errors.

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1 Problem

In the midst of a technologically influenced era, a focus on traditional spelling instructions appears to have become overshadowed by spell checkers, which have become a significant tool for many learners in general, and those learning English as a Second language, in particular. A digitalization could be considered both a distraction and an aid. Therefore, it is vital that teachers develop knowledge of when these digital tools can be used as an aid for the students, and when they become a distraction (Nordström & Lundin 2014, Lundahl 2019: 35).

During our final period of teaching practice, we observed some students expressing their skepticism with regards to the use of spell checkers as a tool for educational purposes. In contrast, the students seemed to appreciate traditional spelling instructions where they did not have access to spell checkers. According to several of these students, focus on spelling acquisition is lacking in the Swedish Upper secondary school, and there was a desire to work more actively with spelling instruction throughout their entire L2 education. Further, in discussion with an English teacher teaching one of the English 6 courses, they raised a concern towards the fact that students often use spell checkers when writing in class. However, when being assessed on the National tests in English, spell checkers are only accessible for students with a diagnosis such as dyslexia. The Swedish Education Act, since 2018, clearly states that the results from the national tests should be taken into notable account when grading the students (Lundahl 2019: 24). In the assessment instruction for the English 6 national test, spelling is considered as one of the assessment factors on which teachers are supposed to base their grading (nafs.gu.se). This, in turn, lead us to raise a question: if spelling is an active part of the assessment of the national tests, should it not also be a part of the English L2 education?

Many studies have been executed regarding L2 learners’ vocabulary acquisition and the correlation between spell checkers and language acquisition. Nonetheless, few researchers have addressed the issue of possible effects of spell checkers on L2 learners’ spelling acquisition. This issue, together with our observations, initiated a discussion about spell checkers and their effects on L2 learners. We acknowledge the pedagogical complexity of spell checkers in an educational setting, hence our curiosity to further investigate it. Our interests lie

(6)

in examining the effect of spell checkers on spelling acquisition and whether or not they help students in their learning process and if there is still a need for an explicit focus on spelling in the classroom at Upper secondary level. To investigate this matter further, we decided to study a small group of English 6 students’ attitudes to spell checkers, as well as to systematically review previous research on the topic.

1.2 Purpose and research questions

The purpose of this study is to investigate in which ways spell checkers affect L2 learners’ spelling acquisition and whether or not they are suitable for educational purposes. Therefore, our main question for this study is:

● In what ways do spell checkers help or hinder Upper secondary school students in their acquisition of spelling in English as an L2?

In order to answer this question, we had to begin by asking two further questions:

● What attitudes do a small group of Swedish students studying English 6 have with regards to the use of spell checkers and the ways they influence their spelling acquisition?

● What does previous research reveal about the effects of spell checkers in regards to spelling acquisition?

2. Background to the Study

2.1 Vocabulary and spelling acquisition

To understand the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition, it is important to have background knowledge of how vocabulary and spelling is acquired. There are many dimensions to knowing a word (Nation 2001, Richards 2015: 297). A learner has to acquire a receptive/passive and productive/active knowledge of its form, use, and meaning in both written and spoken language. Spelling, which is a part of the productive vocabulary and the formation of a word, is, therefore, a vital part of vocabulary acquisition (Lundahl 2012: 334-337). Richards (2015: 297-307) discusses different dimensions of word knowledge, for

(7)

example, word relations, multiple meaning, register, grammatical properties of words, multi-word expressions, and cross-linguistic differences. He argues that the acquisition of a large vocabulary helps develop the learner's receptive and productive skills. Therefore, he emphasizes that, as word knowledge is an essential part of mastering the four skills, a focus on vocabulary, be it taught explicitly or implicitly, should always be integrated into the teaching and learning of all skills, such as a component of reading, writing, speaking or listening. Richards defines explicit learning as a process of conscious learning, using activities that actively seek to teach the learner. In contrast, implicit learning refers to incidental learning, which is acquired without conscious awareness and comes as a by-product of engaging in other activities (2015: 37-39, 307). Lundahl (2012: 338-339) points out that expanding one's vocabulary requires the use of several different senses, and that acquisition of word knowledge can occur in three different stages: focused input (listening and reading),

meaning-focused output (speaking and writing) and deliberate/intentional vocabulary learning

(studying words and phrases). By integrating these three stages into language teaching, the learner is given the best conditions for vocabulary acquisition where acquisition of word knowledge in the first two stages, in contrast to stage three, occurs as a side effect of language use.

Fridolfsson (2015: 113-114) mentions the importance of being able to decode words. Decoding refers to the technical side of reading in which a reader can link the letters of a word in order to make sounds and, in turn, combine the letters’ sounds and form a word. To link sounds means that the reader knows the principles of single letters and sounds can be combined and form a word or a syllable. Fridolfsson (2015: 181) also states that learning how to spell is a long process, often a longer process than learning to read. However, learning to spell is crucial for literacy. According to Beringer and Fayol (2008: 1-3), there are three types of coding in connection with spelling acquisition, which the learner has to coordinate during spelling instruction. (1) Phonological coding is being aware of the sounds in spoken words, (2) orthographic code is presented as the coding and awareness of letters in a written word, and (3) morphological coding, which is awareness of how parts of a word, such as a prefix or suffix, could modify the meaning of a word.

Further, Beringer and Fayol (2008: 3) explain that children learning how to spell create a mental dictionary with spellings of written words in their long-term memory through instruction and practice. By teaching different spelling strategies and providing practice for how to apply them,

(8)

the learner is given opportunity to develop automatic spelling. The English Department for Education states that acquiring phonic knowledge, as well as understanding the role of morphology and etymology, is essential for spelling acquisition to occur. Teachers should not only give instructions on rules and patterns but also help the students understand the relationship between meaning and spelling of a word. For example: “understanding the relationship between medical and medicine may help pupils to spell the /s/ sound in medicine with the letter ‘c’” (Department for Education, 2013).

2.2 Common L2 spelling errors

To be able to understand the effects of spell checkers and their correlation to L2 spelling acquisition, it is important to be aware of which errors often occur in written texts amongst L2 learners. In considering common spelling errors made by L2 learners, James (1998: 130-134) identifies four different categories of written errors, all of which he refers to as mechanical errors: (1) punctuation errors, (2) typographic errors, (3) dyslexic errors, and (4) confusibles. Errors such as under- or overuse of apostrophes and capital letters, misplaced commas, or splits are categorized as punctuation errors, while typographic errors (typos) are more likely to be mistakes than actual errors when fingering on the keyboard. Dyslexic errors are explained as common errors a dyslexic person makes, such as misordering letters or reversal of the letters b and d. The last category of mechanical errors, confusibles, can easily be mistaken for lexical errors. These errors are made when there appears to be confusion between similar sounding words or morphemes, for example homophones. However, the difference between a lexical error and a confusible is: when making a lexical error, the writer does not know the difference between two words, whereas a confusible is made when the writer fails to differentiate two words in spelling.

Harmer states that one of the many reasons why some L2 students might struggle with English spelling is that there is no one-to-one correspondence between letters and phonemes, which means that single letters can be pronounced in various ways depending on what word they are in (2007: 262). He also points to the fact that some words have various spellings depending on what dialect of English one looks at, which also adds to students' struggle with spelling. Although Harmer advocates making students aware that there are various spelling varieties, they should aim to focus on one variety of English, such as American or British English (2007: 325).

(9)

After having performed a quasi-experimental study where two different groups of L2 learners' spelling were tested through dictation sessions, Rimbar (2017) found that the most common spelling errors were omissions and replacement of letters. He also found that many learners, when uncertain of the spelling of a specific word, often turned to the phonics of their native language or first language (Rimbar, 2017: 4-5). Kress (2012: 338-339) points out that young learners often spell words based on how they sound. Consequently, this could cause problems when it comes to different pronunciations due to dialect or mispronunciations. In Spell it out, Crystal (2013: 9, 15) explains that English spelling is often said to be complicated and confusing since the English language consists of far more sounds than letters. Scharer and Zutell (2012) present a study by Charles Read; he discovered that young language learners often produced similar misspellings due to their knowledge of the names of the alphabetic letters. The study showed that children often get the short vowel sounds wrong since there are no short vowel sounds used as the names of letters in the English alphabet. Hence, when writing a word like bed, where the vowel sound is more similar to the name of the letter A than the name of the letter E, the error is made by spelling the word as they think it sounds, "bad" (Read 1971, 1975, see Scharer & Zutell 2012: 457). Additionally, Crystal (2013: 32-39) explains that except for the vowels, which all have two different sounds, there are three consonants which in Old English, each represented two or more sounds. The letter h was used to spell two different sounds, the letter c was also used to spell two different sounds: /k/ as in cat and /tʃ/ as in child, and the letter g was used to spell three different sounds. Eventually, the spelling of these words that caused such problems changed, but some still cause problems today. An example of that is presented by Davidsen-Nielsen and Harder (2001: 26), who point out that the letter k is more frequently used in the Scandinavian languages than the letter c. This they argue may lead to spelling errors such as spelling the word capitalism as kapitalism.

Davidsen-Nielsen and Harder (2001: 21) discuss that because the Scandinavian languages belong to the Germanic branch, just like the English language, English is often a relatively easy language for Scandinavians to learn. They also explain that pronunciation and spelling are more closely related in the Scandinavian languages than in English. Therefore, common mistakes made by Scandinavian L2 English learners are often made due to the cases where a letter has different value in English than in the first language. Another reason for common errors may be when the English orthography deceives L2 learners after they have worked out the basic rules of the correspondences between sounds and letters. For example, the phoneme /ə/ is always

(10)

spelled with an e in the Scandinavian languages. However, in English, schwa can be spelled with multiple different letters (Davidsen-Nielsen and Harder 2001: 24), such as in: certainly, introduce and civil, among others (teflpedia.com). Further, Davidsen-Nielsen and Harder (2001: 23) introduce the challenge of sounds in English which do not exist in the Scandinavian languages. For example, the phoneme /θ/ spelled th, which does not occur in any of the

Scandinavian languages, is therefore typically pronounced /t/ due to its spelling. E.g. the word

thanks become tank, and three become tree. Similarly, the sounds /ð/ and /ʤ/ do not occur in

Swedish and is often pronounced as /d/ and /j/ instead, the word then is pronounced den and

joke become yoke. These common pronunciation errors made by Scandinavian L2 English

speakers could be a reason why some Scandinavian L2 learners struggle with tEnglish spelling.

Furthermore, Crystal (2013: 113-114), in the same fashion as James, raises the problem with homophones. Crystal explains that there are about 500 homophones in the English language and that these words differ in spelling, yet not in pronunciation due to old English linguistics. When new words with the same pronunciation as an already existing English word appeared to the English language, the words were kept separate by different spellings. Further, he illustrates that some of these homophones such as know and no, and too and to frequently occur in English. However, since these homophones are frequently used, learners get a great deal of practice in writing and reading them and therefore should cause a smaller problem than we might think (Crystal 2013:118).

Based on the argument that "proper spelling is perceived as an important aspect of good writing" and the fact that computerized writing is a large part of today's society, Figueredo and Varnhagen (2005) investigated how spelling errors may affect the reader's apprehension of the author. The participants of their study were divided into three groups and handed different versions of the same two essays. Group one was given two essays containing no spelling errors, the second group was given two essays where homophone misspellings were planted, and the last group was given essays containing non-homophone misspellings. After reading the essays, the participants were asked to answer a questionnaire measuring their perceptions of the quality of the text and the author's abilities (Figueredo and Varnhagen 2005: 446-448). The results of the study indicate that there was a difference in the participants' apprehension of the author, where they were more critical towards the essays containing non-homophone errors than the essays in the other two groups. Participants in the first two groups rated the texts easier to read than the participants in the last group. Figueredo and Varnhagen (2005: 452-454) propose that

(11)

it might be based on the fact that homophone errors still could be comprehended in a semantic context. This result, which indicates that spelling errors have an effect on the readers' apprehension of the author, might be interesting for our study when investigating students’ attitudes towards spell checkers and their effect on their spelling acquisition.

2.3 The effects of spell checkers

In a comparative study of writing errors, Lunsford and Lunsford (2008: 795-797) found that there had been a shift in written errors in the previous two decades. When comparing a study conducted in 1986 with their research executed in 2006, they found that the most common error in 1986, spelling errors, had dropped to the fifth most common writing error. Further, they noticed that wrong word usage had dramatically increased and become the most common writing error accounting for almost 14 percent of the total errors made in the study. The reason for this shift, according to the authors, is the transition from writing by hand to writing texts on computers where spell checkers are commonly used as an aid. They suggest that these changes were a result of the spell checkers’ inability to detect and mark words that are misused, for example homophones. Likewise, Crystal (2013: 7) notes that spell checkers are limited to detect misspellings of non-existing words solely. Whereas words being misspelled, yet exist in the misspelled form, are never marked by the spell checker. In those cases, it is up to the writer themselves to detect and correct the error.

In addition, Lunsford and Lunsford (2008: 297) detected another common error in their study, capitalization errors, which they argue is partially a result of the spell-checking function that automatically capitalizes words following a period used with an abbreviation. Similar to Crystal's argument that it is the writer's responsibility to proofread the text, Lunsford and Lunsford (2008: 297) state that “[i]n these cases, the student had not corrected the error, even though it could have been caught with careful proofreading.” This argument is also shared by Figueredo and Varnhagen (2005: 457), who argue that even though the spell checker may be an aid to reducing errors, the responsibility of ensuring a final text free from errors lies with the author. Rimbar’s (2017) study investigates the correlation between spell checkers and the L2 learners’ ability to generate repair of their spelling errors. He states that spell checkers help students reduce surface-level spelling errors. However, he argues the downside with this is that L2 learners often become over-reliant on the spell checker function to correct the errors and therefore does not contribute to their learning process.

(12)

Lawley (2016: 869-873) also raises concerns regarding spell checkers in computer programs used in learning situations connected to second language learning (L2). He points out that in many cases, the spell checkers do not detect errors that are related to homophones or other words that are not used within the correct context. Lawley also states that the commonly used spell checkers, such as the MS Word spell checker, often suggest less appropriate replacement words, which can cause an L2 learner to choose a word suggested that is not correct within its context. Therefore, he has created a prototype pedagogic spell checker (PPSC) that does not solely detect and flag misspelled words, but also words that seem to be incorrectly used in a sentence. The PPSC also provides pedagogic feedback when detecting an error instead of only giving the learner a list of suggested words. Lawley points out that this will help the L2 learner to learn rules and patterns, which is going to make it easier for both learners and teachers in the classroom (Lawley, 2016:873). Therefore, it is argued that PPSC can help solve the problems with spelling errors that a classic spell checker cannot.

Lin, Liu, and Paas (2017: 1503) have conducted a study in which they examine different effects of various spell-checking software. Their goal has been to examine how the different types of aids affect L2 learning, and at the same time, identify what kind of learning each spelling aid induces short-time or long-time learning. The authors investigate the effects of three different types of spelling aids: (1) red underlines flagging an error, (2) spell checkers offering a drop-down list of suggestions, and (3) digital dictionaries that requires the writer to search relevant information in a separate search bar. Long-time learning is significantly more effective in the spell checker and the dictionary groups than the red underlines group. Additionally, the study suggests the durability of learning is most apparent among the dictionary group, where the users had to put more effort into finding the correct words to use (Lin, Liu & Paas 2017: 1505-1506, 1516). Their study showed that even though spell checkers are used primarily as a convenience as opposed to traditional spelling acquisition, spell checkers did contribute to spelling acquisition to some extent (2017: 1518-1524). These results support Lawley's idea that long-time learning emerges when the L2 has to correct their errors effectively and simultaneously learn the rules and patterns of spelling.

In the same manner as Lawley, Stapleton and Radia (2009) argue that second language acquisition needs to pay more attention to new ways of writing as teaching increasingly involves technological and online tools. An example of a technological tool that most students

(13)

are familiar with would be Microsoft Word, which uses a word-processing software. This word-processing software uses red and green underlines throughout a text, which aims to help students identify errors in their texts. When a word is underlined with red, it alerts the student that the word does not exist in the processor’s dictionary. The student can then right-click the word and see other suggestions that are similar to the misspelled word. However, when a green line emerges, rather than alert a misspelled word, the software alerts when grammar is not used correctly. It can alert errors such as singular-plural, subject-verb agreement, or run-on sentences (Stapleton & Radia 2009: 176).

With these online tools being used by L2 students, teachers’ dull tasks such as correcting spelling and grammar throughout a text can be eliminated. Instead, the authors argue that teachers have more time to focus on and review other aspects of a student’s text. Such a shift of focus could be towards either paragraph organization or the content of the text. Although these tools can aid teachers, they also require teachers to have knowledge about how to use them and, in turn, introduce them to their students (2009: 180-182). The authors recognize further developments to the existing electronic tools as these tools, although they intend to correct mistakes, often miss errors or make students put in more effort than what they are willing to do. Even though the authors recognize a need for improvements to the online tools, they do argue that students’ written products will benefit from them (Stapleton & Radia 2009: 182).

3. The present study

For this chapter, the method and materials of this study will be presented. The chapter has been divided into two sections, one for the systematic literature review and one for the digital questionnaire. Each section will begin with an account of the method used to retrieve the empirical data followed by the material. This chapter will also include a section about ethical aspects, where we discuss how the ethical principles have been followed.

Lastly, a clarification is due on the two used terms questionnaire and survey that occur frequently throughout the study. The term questionnaire is referred to as the online form of questions answered by the respondents. The term survey is used when discussing the entire process of collecting, analyzing and presenting the data from the questionnaire.

(14)

3.1 Systematic literature review

For this study, a literature review was conducted to collect data within our research area. As mentioned by Snyder (2019), literature reviews can be useful when the purpose of the study is to provide an overview of a specific topic or research problem. She outlines three types of literature review; the systematic literature review, the semi-systematic literature review, and the integrative literature review. Although all three methods could be applied to our study, the most suitable review is the systematic literature review. Snyder describes the systematic literature review as a research method for identifying and critically evaluating relevant research. Furthermore, it is also used to collect and analyze data from research. Its use benefit studies which aim to identify empirical data that could be used to answer a particular research question or hypothesis (2019: 334). Snyder argues that the benefits of a systematic literature review include identifying whether or not effects are consistent throughout the various studies or if further research is required in the specific area (Snyder, 2019: 335).

When searching for relevant literature, we mainly focused on studies and articles that treat our specific research area, which is the effects of spell checkers on the acquisition of English as an L2. To be able to determine whether or not various studies were relevant or not, we screened eventual studies by reading its abstract. Snyder (2019) states that by doing a screening as such works as a tool to identify potentially relevant studies. This leaves time to read the full article later, as opposed to reading the full text first as that might be time-consuming. Because of the limited time period to conduct this study, we argue that doing a screening of possible useful studies was reasonable.

Once we had a sufficient amount of chosen literature within our research area, we read the full texts and summarized each study as a basis for the literature review. Summarizing each study yielded a clear account of the study’s method, results, analysis, and conclusions. After we had summarized each study, we pursued to look for key themes that could help us categorize our findings into themed headlines. The thematization generated three main themes that were presented as headlines in chapters 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 as well as in Table 1 below.

The material for the systematic literature review consisted of thirteen various types of literature within our research area. Below is a table which shows the selected literature and outlines its contributions to this study. It also displays what themes we were able to extract from the texts.

(15)

Table 1

Authors Type of literature Research area and contributions Themes

Crystal (2013)

Figueredo and Varnhagen (2005) Harmer (2007) James (1998) Kress (2012) Lawley (2016) Lin et al. (2017) Lundahl (2012)

Lunsford and Lunsford (2008) Richards (2015)

Rimbar (2017)

Scharer and Zutell (2012) Stapleton and Radia (2009)

Print book Journal Article Print book Print book Chapter in anthology Journal Article Journal Article Print book Journal Article Print book Journal Article Chapter in anthology Journal Article

History of English spelling

Spell checkers and its effects on a writer’s text

Language acquisition

Types of mechanical written errors The correlation between audio and written product

Generic spell checkers effects on L2 students’ self-correction

Spell checkers’ effects on L2 learning

Vocabulary acquisition

Common spelling errors made when using spell checkers

Dimensions of word knowledge, and explicit and implicit learning The effects of spell checkers and their correlation with learning

The correlation between vowel sounds and misspellings

Technological tools’ effects on L2 writing

Common L2 spelling errors The effects of spell checkers Common L2 spelling errors Common L2 spelling errors Common L2 spelling errors Common L2 spelling errors The effects of spell checkers The effects of spell checkers Vocabulary and spelling acquisition

The effects of spell checkers Vocabulary and spelling acquisition

Common L2 spelling errors The effects of spell checkers Common L2 spelling errors The effects of spell checkers

3.2 Digital questionnaire

A digital questionnaire, based on students’ attitudes towards the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition, was conducted in two different English 6 courses in two Swedish schools in southern Sweden and was answered by 41 respondents. The questionnaire consisted of four questions: two quantitative questions each followed by a qualitative question, concerning the students’ thoughts on the effects of spell checkers (see appendix 1). To get as many detailed replies as possible, we chose to conduct the survey in Swedish. Therefore, the categorized results were translated into English and grammatically corrected.

(16)

According to Hagevi and Viscovi (2016: 120-121), multiple studies have shown that reply options that are verbalized are often preferred to a greater extent than numeric reply options. Based on this observation, we chose to use fixed verbalized reply options for our quantitative questions instead of numeric scales. A problem concerning the use of questions with fixed reply options is that this could lead to a loss of vital information or respondents not agreeing with the reply options given (Hagevi and Viscovi 2016: 82). Hence, the two quantitative questions included the reply option “other” where the respondents were given the option to formulate their own answer. Further, these questions were followed by an open-ended qualitative question where the respondents were required to comment on their previous answers in a more detailed manner.

3.2.1 Ethical aspects

This study acts in accordance with The Swedish Research Council (2020), who has presented four ethical principles for research, which, in our translation, follows:

● Requirement of Information ● Requirement of Consent

● Requirement of Confidentiality ● Requirement of Usefulness

When respondents were given access to the digital questionnaire, information about the study was presented in a section in which all respondents had to read in order to answer the questions (see appendix 1). All respondents were informed about the aim of the study and the voluntariness of answering the questions. In this section, the respondents were also informed about their anonymity, and that their answers could not and would not be traceable to one specific person. Since the material collected from the questionnaire is useful only for this specific study, the material will not be saved or used for other purposes. Consequently, this fulfils the four ethical principles.

3.3 Method used for the analysis of results

The method used for analyzing the accumulated data from the questionnaire is based on the phenomenographic research approach method. The focus of the phenomenographic method is to study perceptions, where the primary purpose is to investigate people's perceptions of the

(17)

surrounding world (Patel 2019: 37; Kihlström 2007). According to Patel (2019: 37), the phenomenographic approach was developed as a qualitative method in order to study the process of learning, with a focus on what is being learned rather than the amount of knowledge acquired. Kihlström (2007: 157) explains that the purpose of a phenomenographic study is to identify variations and systemize perceptions and experiences of various phenomenon. By exploring the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition, which we regard as a phenomenon, this study aims to investigate the respondents' perception of the phenomenon in question.

Both Kihlström (2007: 159-160) and Patel (2019: 38) point out that a phenomenographic method is usually executed through qualitative open-ended interviews where the respondents answer questions using their own words. However, the data could also consist of observations, written answers or historical documents. Based on this, the survey conducted for this study was created to allow the respondents margin to answer the qualitative questions as freely as possible. These quantitative questions were mainly formulated to retrieve a surface level view of the respondents' attitudes and were, therefore, given less consideration in this study. Feldon and Tofel-Grehl (2018: 888-891) argues that a phenomenographic method is suitable for a mixed model study where both quantitative and qualitative data is collected and analyzed and that by including both fixed and open-ended reply options in a survey mixing within the data collection phase could be accomplished.

We began by retrieving data from the quantitative questions of the questionnaire. To present the frequency of the data, descriptive statistics were used and will be presented further in the results. According to Kihlström (2007: 163), it is the different categories created from the data that makes the results of a phenomenographic study, not the frequency. However, the frequency is usually presented to show the categories' various range. We chose to include the quantitative data, although the focus of our analysis will mainly be on the formulated categories.

When analyzing the qualitative data, this study has pursued the four-step inductive phenomenographic approach presented by both Alexandersson (1994: 94-98) and Patel (2019: 38). The first step is focused on getting acquainted with and establishing a general impression of the data. The second step is to distinguish similarities and differences of perceptions on the various responses, followed by the third step, where these various perceptions are divided into different categories. The fourth step is then to study the underlying structure of the different

(18)

categories. The first step was accomplished by reading through the responses to all questions multiple times to get acquainted with the data. During steps two and three, we color-coded the various responses based on similarities in content and, in doing so, established several categories of perceptions among the students' responses, and then sorted the retrieved data into each category. The fourth step was implemented by studying the data in the different categories to retrieve useful patterns of perception. Finally, we have compared the results from the literature review to the phenomenographic results to obtain a broader picture of the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition.

4. Results and analysis

This chapter will give an account for the results from both the systematic literature review and the questionnaire. For section 4.2, the answers by the respondents will be presented in English, even though they were originally written in Swedish. All answers have been translated and, in some cases, grammatically corrected in order to make better sense of them. Our translation will be marked as (o.t.) after each quote.

4.1 Systematic literature review

Below is an account of the main findings of the systematic literature review. An analysis of the literature reviewed indicates that there are moderate disagreements when it comes to the effects of spell checkers and spelling in general.

Although they have looked at different types of spell checkers, both Lin, Liu and Paas (2017) and Lawley (2016) agree that spell checkers can contribute to long-time spelling acquisition. Lawley (2016) argues that L2 students learn when they notice their own mistakes and correct them through PPSC, a prototype pedagogical spell checker. In contrast, Lin, Liu and Paas (2017) argue that long-time learning is more effective when the spell checkers offer suggestions of words or when there is a digital dictionary that requires the writer to search for information on their own. Common for both studies are an optimism towards spell checkers and their positive effects. Rimbar (2017), on the other hand, does not share the previous studies’ optimism towards spell checkers. Instead, he argues that spell checkers are limited in their effects on learning as L2 learners become over-reliant on the spell checkers. Therefore, he argues that spell checkers do not contribute to the learning process to a greater extent in the

(19)

way Lin, Liu and Paas (2017) and Lawley (2016) do. Lin, Liu and Paas (2017) mention that students who put in effort in finding the correct words are the ones who seemed to gain a long-time knowledge.

Figueredo and Varnhagen (2005) argue that spell checkers can be an aid to reduce spelling errors, but the authors claim that ensuring the final text is free from errors is the author’s responsibility rather than the spell checkers. Lunsford and Lunsford (2008), as well as Crystal (2013), advocate for the writer’s responsibility of proofreading a text instead of relying on a spell checker. Similar to Rimbar (2017), Crystal (2013) is not convinced that spell checkers have a positive effect on spelling acquisition. He implies that spell checkers are limited to detecting misspelled words that are non-existing solely, and when words exist but are misspelled in the wrong context, they are not marked by the spell checker. Thereby, the literature above seems to point out the importance of the author’s responsibility in producing a text free of errors. What can be extracted from these authors is that although spell checkers can be an aid in various ways, responsibility of learning is still on the author or learner’s behalf.

Harmer (2007) mentions that spelling might be difficult for L2 learners because the English language does not always have a one-to-one correspondence between letters and phonemes. Kress (2012) states that students often spell words based on how they sound, which corresponds to Harmer’s statement on spelling difficulties. Both authors agree that spelling could also be affected by writers’ dialect since words might have various spellings or pronunciations. James (1998) listed different types of errors that happen when spelling. These errors include typographic errors, dyslexic errors and confusibles. He states that many errors are made when words sound similar, for example words like ‘their’ and ‘there’. Similarly, Scharer and Zutell (2012) argue that students make errors due to their already existing knowledge of the names of the alphabetic letters. James (1998), Scharer and Zutell (2012), Kress (2012) and Harmer (2007) all share similar findings on common spelling errors. Hence, the literature demonstrates a complexity in regards to the elements in which might make spelling difficult. Based on these authors’ work, it seems as if spelling difficulties can rest on phonetic or dialect errors.

Stapleton and Radia (2009) claim that with the help of spell checkers, teachers have more time to focus on other aspects of students’ work. Although it might help teachers, it also requires teachers to know how the spell checkers are used and how to introduce them to students. As the authors see a positive outcome of spell checkers, they also recognize further improvements

(20)

for them to be fully compatible. The authors still find that spell checkers miss errors in texts, and the spell checkers that are available today are not fully complete in its aid for students and teachers. Therefore, Stapleton and Radia (2009) follow the path of suggestions of Lawley (2016) and Lin, Liu and Paas (2017) as far as to spell checkers’ features.

4.2 Online questionnaire

In Figure 1, the students’ attitudes towards the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition are presented. As can be seen, a majority of the respondents answered “partly” to the question if they thought that the spell checkers contribute to their spelling acquisition. While 19,5 percent of the respondents said that spell checkers do contribute to their learning, 19,5 percent did not consider spell checkers to be an aid for spelling acquisition.

This result was then further investigated through question two in the questionnaire, where the respondents wrote comments regarding their perception of the spell checkers’ effects on their spelling acquisition. The data from question two was divided into four different categories based on similarities and differences in the respondents’ perceptions: visual learning,

autocorrect, quick-fix, and individual responsibility (see appendix 2).

The first category, visual learning, included comments from respondents who were positive towards the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition. Comments placed in this category mainly focused on implicit learning where the respondent’s perception was that

(21)

by watching the spell checker correcting an error, one automatically learns the correct spelling of the word. One respondent explained it as following: “If one has misspelled a word and the spell checker corrects it, one can see what error is made. And it is often just an incorrect letter, but one that is important for the spelling of the word” (o.t.).

Comments that showed negative perceptions from the respondents were placed into either the category autocorrect or quick-fix. Several respondents answered that the autocorrect function of the spell checker software often corrects the error before the writer has noticed it, therefore spell checkers do not contribute to the writer’s spelling acquisition. A few respondents commented that they actively choose not to use the spell checker as an aid for learning purposes, but solely use it to make the writing process more effective. Comments such as “because it gets corrected automatically so you do not have to correct it yourself. You do not learn, the computer does it for you” (o.t.), and, “it does not aid the learning process, but it saves a lot of time because you do not have time to look up how all words are spelled…” (o.t.) were commonly expressed. Some respondents also confessed that one reason behind not using the aid for spelling acquisition is laziness.

In the fourth category, individual responsibility, comments where the respondents argued that it is the writer’s responsibility to use the spell checker function as an aid for learning purposes were placed. We chose to include comments such as “I learn when I actively check what the computer has marked or corrected, but sometimes I just let the spell checker correct the error and then I do not learn” (o.t.), which indicated that the respondent’s perception was that the learning process must be explicit. On the other hand, comments which suggest that implicit learning might occur while using spell checkers were also included in this category.

It can help when you repeatedly see how a word is spelled correctly, and thereby finally might be able to spell it without the aid. Meanwhile, it can also prevent the learning process since one never has to write it by hand, then one might have learned the correct spelling faster (o.t.).

This comment indicates that if the writer consciously chooses to spell a word by hand, instead of merely clicking the suggested word in the wordlist, spelling acquisition will be obtained more rapidly.

(22)

Figure 2 presents the data from the third question in the survey, where the respondents got to answer the question When the spell checker marks a misspelling or error in your text, what do

you do? with fixed reply options. 34,1 percent of the respondents answered that they register

the correct spelling in order not to misspell the same word next time. 31,7 percent chose the alternative: I simply correct the error and move on, and 24,4 percent said that they try to remember the correct spelling, but usually misspell the same words again. Out of the 41 respondents, four of them (9,8 percent) chose the alternative other, where they could formulate their answer to the question. The respondents who answered other agreed that what they decide to do depends on the situation, “sometimes I try to remember the word and sometimes I just correct it and move on” (o.t.).

The final part of the questionnaire was constructed to retrieve both quantitative and qualitative data utilizing a yes-no question, where the respondents who answered ‘yes’ were asked to elaborate their answers, commenting how they thought that could be done. When reading the answers, we found that 43,9 percent of the respondents believed that spell checkers have the potential to operate better for learning purposes. In comparison, 29,3 percent were of the opposite opinion. Twenty-two percent of the respondents were uncertain and answered that they did not know, and 4,9 percent ignored the question by giving an irrelevant answer (see Figure 3). The data was also divided into five various categories (see appendix 3) to retrieve a more detailed picture of the respondents’ perceptions about the potentiality of spell checkers to be used for learning purposes.

(23)

In the first three categories, the answers indicate that the respondents thought the spell checker software had potential for improvements. Several respondents said they did believe that the spell checker software could be developed further to work better for learning purposes. However, some respondents also expressed that they did not know how the issue could be solved and that they would rather leave that to the experts. These perceptions were categorized as uncertain how. In the category no autocorrect, perceptions that the autocorrect-function of the spell checkers should be removed, and comments such as “force the student to rewrite the word on their own” (o.t.) were placed. The third category, more information, similarly to the previous one, contained responses which gave examples of how the spell checkers could be improved. One respondent answered that the program should give the writer an example sentence when an error has occurred, instead of simply a box with suggested words. Another respondent suggested that there should be a combination of visual and auditory aid so that the writer could listen to the correct spelling and thereby learn on a deeper level.

The last two categories, no need for improvement and individual responsibility, contains comments where the perceptions were that there is no need for improvement in the spell checker software. One respondent expressed that they did not believe spell checkers to be a useful aid for learning purposes and that teachers could find better and more effective ways to teach spelling, while several respondents believed that the spell checkers “are good as they are” (o.t.). Only one comment was placed in the category individual responsibility, this respondent argued that “it is up to every writer themselves to try to remember the words and to learn them” (o.t.), which indicates that they believe that spelling acquisition does not depend on the specific program, but on the learner’s attitude and desire to learn.

(24)

5. Discussion

This chapter will focus on comparing the results from the systematic literature review and the results of the survey in order to discover possible similarities or differences. The content has been categorized into three subheadings based on the findings.

5.1 Individual responsibility

A recurring theme throughout the systematic literature review is the belief that the writer alone is responsible for creating an error-free text. Figuardo and Varnhagen (2005) believe that the author needs to ensure that the final product is free of errors. One of the respondents stated that they believe “it is up to every writer themselves to try to remember the words and learn them” (o.t.). The similarity lies in the views of a writer’s responsibility. Whether it is ensuring an error-free text or ensuring to remember the correct spelling, the responsibility to do so lies with the writer and not the spell checker. The systematic literature review and the results from the survey indicate that relying on a spell checker can be problematic regardless what the intentions and purposes of using spell checkers are. As mentioned by the respondent, a writer might use a spell checker to notice errors that might not have been noticed without it. However, the respondent realizes the importance of not relying on the spell checker.

In the same way, Rimbar (2017) states that spell checkers are limited and do not always detect various errors. One respondent stated that “I learn when I actively check what the computer

(25)

has marked or corrected, but sometimes I just let the spell checker correct the error and then I do not learn” (o.t.). The respondent’s answer supports to Lin, Liu, and Paas (2017). They state that learners who put in more effort into using and working with the spell checkers will gain more long-time knowledge than those who do not. Again, learners' ability to take responsibility when using spell checkers seems to be significant regarding correcting errors and individual learning. Arguments made by the respondents and the mentioned previous research could indicate that when individual responsibility is applied, spell checkers could be considered to help learners with their spelling acquisition.

Lawley (2016) mentions that students learn when they notice their own mistakes through a pedagogical spell checker and correct them. His statement also seems to support the idea of students’ responsibility to learn and correct words. A respondent said that they try to “register the correct spelling not to misspell it again” (o.t.). A spell checker might point out an error, but students need to remember it themselves to gain knowledge of how the word is spelled. Nevertheless, the results from the systematic literature review and the survey indicate that a certain amount of individual responsibility has to be added when using a spell checker.

5.2 Need for improvement

In contrast to the arguments about individual responsibility, 43,9 percent of the respondents believed that spell checkers could be improved if they were to function effectively for learning purposes. Some suggestions of improvement given by the respondents were that spell checkers should provide the writer with the correct spelling, in example sentences instead of in a list of singled words. This reasoning could also be drawn to Lin, Liu, and Paas’ (2017) argument that long-time learning becomes more effective when the spell checker forces the writer to actively engage in corrections. Although the learner has to put in their effort to acquire knowledge, the spell checker, in this case, would actively engage the writer in explicit learning.

Two of the respondents' suggestion was to combine visual and auditory aids to improve the spell checkers for learning purposes. This reasoning tallies with a majority of the previous research which highlights that the correlation between sound and spelling can create difficulties for the learner, due to variations in pronunciations, confusables such as homophones, or mispronunciations (Rimbar 2017; Fridolfsson 2015; Crystal 2013; Scharer and Zutell 2012; Kress 2012; Beringer and Fayol 2008; Harmer 2007; James 1998). Because many of the

(26)

common errors are due to the correspondence between sound and phonemes, the suggestions to include auditory aid in the spell checkers could make the program work better for learning purposes.

As presented in the results, 19,5 percent of the respondents did not consider the spell checker software aid for spelling acquisition. Multiple students drew parallels between the negative view of spell checkers and their autocorrect functions. When asked how spell checkers could be improved to function for learning purposes, these students argued that one solution is to remove this function and “force the students to rewrite the word” (o.t.). Here, our study differs slightly from the previous research, where the focus of the autocorrect-function is less substantial. Lunsford and Lunsford (2008) mentioned in their study that capitalization errors often result from autocorrect. However, the fact that the autocorrect-function corrects errors or mistakes before the writer has noticed it is not a problem brought up in any of the previous studies. These arguments indicate that spell checkers occasionally hinder students in their acquisition of spelling.

Furthermore, Rimbar (2017), Crystal (2013), and Stapleton and Radia (2009) are all critical towards the fact that spell checkers do not register all errors made in a text when errors constitute of misused existing words. Surprisingly, this observation was not something that the students who were answering the questionnaire reflected on. However, several of the students arguing that spell checkers need improvement to function as a tool for spelling acquisition were uncertain of how this could be achieved. This uncertainty of how to develop spell checkers could indicate that these students have not reflected on software malfunctions, and therefore struggle with the reasoning of how to improve them.

5.3 Other aspects

Apart from the students who either argued for or against the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition, a group of respondents only considered spell checkers a time-saver while writing. These respondents stressed that they actively choose not to use spell checker for learning purposes, but solely as a quick fix to write more effectively. This reasoning correlates with Stapleton and Radia’s (2009) argument that spell checkers give teachers the possibility to focus on other aspects of language acquisition. In this case, the spell checker function is

(27)

considered as a support for surface-level knowledge and should not be used for learning purposes.

6. Conclusion

As mentioned in the introduction, the focus on spelling instruction appears to have, due to technological developments, declined during the last two decades. This study aimed to investigate what impact spell checkers have on L2 learners’ spelling acquisition. In order to do this, the following questions have been addressed:

1. In what ways do spell checkers help or hinder Upper secondary school students in their acquisition of spelling in English as an L2?

2. What attitudes do a small group of students studying English 6 have with regards to the use of spell checkers and the ways they influence their spelling acquisition? 3. What does previous research reveal about the effects of spell checkers in regards to

spelling acquisition?

We have observed three distinct perceptions that could be identified both in the systematic literature review and in the results of the survey. These perceptions are: (1)requirement of individual responsibility when using spell checkers for learning purposes, (2)need for improvement of spell checkers in order to use them for spelling acquisition, and (3)the perception that spell checkers should not be used as an aid for spelling acquisition. The findings of this study suggest that spell checkers could be considered an aid to the L2 learners’ spelling acquisition. However, for it to contribute to the learning process, users are required to consciously engage in explicit learning to be able to utilize the aid the spell checker provides. Not only should the teacher know how to instruct their students to use spell checker for it to support their spelling acquisition, but the students are also required to take responsibility for their learning. Therefore, a user of spell checkers needs to be aware of the limitations of the software to use it as a help for learning purposes. The autocorrect-function and the limitation of not detecting existing misused vocabulary may hinder the learner in their spelling acquisition.

Previous studies have shown that spelling errors in a text often affects not only the grading of the final product but also the reader’s perception of the author. Even though the Swedish

(28)

curriculum for English in the Upper secondary school does not explicitly mention spelling as a part of the knowledge requirements, producing a clear and fluent text indirectly puts pressure on the writer to be able to spell correctly. To pass the requirement of being clear and fluent, we argue that correct spelling is a necessity.

An intention with this study is for it to be used to inform and inspire L2 learners and teachers of English. It can inspire teachers to reintroduce traditional spelling instruction or inspire both teachers and learners to learn more about the impacts of using spell checkers in an educational setting. Nonetheless, anyone interested in the matter may gain insight on spell checkers and their effects on spelling acquisition. As teachers to be, we also find evidence in the research that spell checkers might need to be used with caution. Therefore, we suggest that learners and teachers need to be careful when, and if, spell checkers are used for educational purposes.

Given that spell checkers are not allowed during the Swedish National tests, we acknowledge the hesitation of letting learners rely on them during their preparation for the tests. We argue that there should be a greater focus on spelling instruction in the L2 classroom. While spell checkers can undeniably be an aid for many learners when writing, we have doubts about their impact on spelling acquisition. Keeping this in mind, we suggest that teachers could wean students off their use of spell checkers by letting them write by hand instead of on a digital device where there is access to spell checkers. By doing this, teachers could also get an idea of what types of spelling errors occur amongst students; errors that otherwise would have been corrected by a spell checker.

6.1 Problematization & implications for future research

Finally, a number of potential limitations need to be considered. First, the number of respondents was relatively low in this study. An aspiration would have been to receive more answers than the amount that we did. This would have generated a broader perspective, and presumably, higher reliability. However, we regard our results to be of acceptable quality since many of the answers we received were elaborate and rich in their content. One reason why the number of respondents was low is the fact that we only included two different classes from two local schools when handing out the questionnaire. Therefore, we recommend using a more extensive and broader sample group for future studies.

(29)

An important aspect to keep in mind is that the current study is based on the phenomenographic approach, where interpretation of perceptions is vital. If the material of this study would have been analyzed and interpreted by someone else, there is a possibility that the outcome of the study would have been different. This is due to the many interpretations and translations that have been done to make sense of the material.

Another limitation of this study was the choice of total anonymity for the respondents. Due to our questionnaire being online and designed to be anonymous, we have not been able to pinpoint which answer belonged to which respondent. Therefore, the respondents throughout the study were never numbered or named in any way. We treated each response as an individual response with no regard to who might have said what. While we did acknowledge the possible relevance of wanting to know which respondent said what, we argue that this anonymity purely makes the study ethical and as promised to the respondents.

Our work has some limitations. Despite this, we believe our work could be a starting point for future studies of the correlation between spell checkers and spelling acquisition. When reflecting on other possible options that would have been suitable for a study such as this one, we believe that by also conducting interviews, a broader and more in-depth perspective on spell checkers and their effects on L2 learners of English could be received.

Further, this study mostly focused on the learners’ perception of the effects of spell checkers. A suggestion for future studies is to include English teachers’ attitudes towards the usage of spell checkers in the L2 classroom, and their effects on the learners’ spelling acquisition. When asking the students about their learning process and their preferred way of acquiring a L2, they give their perspective. If interviews with teachers would be conducted, a broader perspective of the subject might appear. A possible outcome of receiving teachers’ and students’ perspectives could also result in a study where perceptions of the two sides could be compared and analyzed.

As newly qualified teachers, we believe that it is important for all teachers of English to know how and when spell checkers should be used. We understand that spell checkers will always be available in the L2 classroom. However, based on the results of this study, we argue that spelling needs to be addressed explicitly in correlation with the use of spell checkers. We also

(30)

believe that it is of utter importance that the use of spell checkers and significance of spelling instruction is introduced during the years of teacher training.

(31)

7. References

Alexandersson, M., 1994. Metod och medvetande. Diss. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Berninger, V. and Fayol, M., 2008. Why spelling is important and how to teach it effectively. [online] Literacyhow.org. Available at:

https://www.literacyhow.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why_Spelling_Is_Important_and_How_To_Teach_It_Effectively1. pdf [Accessed: 2020-05-14].

Crystal, D., 2013. Spell it out: the singular story of English spelling. London: Profile Books Davidsen-Nielsen, N. and Harder, P., 2001. Speakers of Scandinavian languages: Danish, Norwegian, Swedish. In: M. Swan and B. Smith, ed., Learner English, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.21-36.

Department for Education, 2013. National curriculum in England: English programmes of

study, Appendix 1: Spelling. Available at:

https://stphilipneriprimary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/English_Appendix_1_-_Spelling.pdf [Accessed: 2020-05-18].

Feldon, D. and Tofel-Grehl, C., 2018. Phenomenography as a foundation for mixed models research. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), pp.887-899.

Figueredo, L. and Varnhagen, C., 2005. Didn't you run the spell checker? Effects of type of spelling error and use of a spell checker on perceptions of the author. Reading Psychology, 26(4-5), pp.441-458.

Fridolfsson, I., 2015. Grunderna i läs- och skrivinlärning. 2nd ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Hagevi, M. and Viscovi, D., 2016. Enkäter. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Harmer, J., 2007. The practice of English language teaching. 4th [rev.] ed., Longman, Harlow.

James, C., 1998. Errors in language learning and use: exploring error analysis. London: Longman

Kihlström, S., 2007. Fenomenografi som forskningsansats. In: J. Dimenäs, ed., Lära till

lärare, Stockholm: Liber, pp.157-173.

Kress, G., 2012. Perspectives on making meaning: The differential principles and means of adults and children. In: Larson, Joanne & Marsh, Jackie (red.) The Sage handbook of early

childhood literacy. 2. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.329-344.

Lawley, J., 2016. Spelling: Computerised feedback for self-correction. Computer assisted

(32)

Lin, P., Liu, T. and Paas, F., 2017. Effects of spell checkers on English as a second language students’ incidental spelling learning: a cognitive load perspective. Reading and Writing, 30(7), pp.1501-1525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9734-4

Lundahl, B., 2012. Engelsk språkdidaktik. 3rd ed., Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lundahl, B., 2019. Engelsk språkdidaktik. 4th ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Lunsford, A. A. and Lunsford, J. K., (2008). "Mistakes are a fact of life": A national comparative study. College composition and communication, 59(4), pp.781-806. Available at: http://stabler3010.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58546609/lunsford%20mistakes.pdf

[Accessed: 2020-04-01].

Nafs.gu.se. n.d. Focus: Writing bedömningsanvisningar. [online] Available at:

https://nafs.gu.se/digitalAssets/1427/1427848_eng6_writing_bedanvisn_gy2011.pdf [Accessed: 2020-05-18].

Patel, R. and Davidson, B., 2019. Forskningsmetodikens grunder. 5th ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Richards, J., 2015. Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rimbar, H., 2017. The influence of spell-checkers on students’ ability to generate repairs of spelling errors. Journal of Nusantara studies (JONUS), 2(1), pp.1-12.

Scharer, L. P. and Zutell, J., 2012. The development of spelling. In: Larson, Joanne & Marsh, Jackie (red.) The Sage handbook of early childhood literacy. 2. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.448-481.

Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines.

Journal of Business Research, 104, pp.333-339.

Stapleton, P. and Radia, P., 2009. Tech-era L2 writing: towards a new kind of process. ELT

Journal, 64(2), pp.175-183.

Teflpedia.com. 2020. Teflpedia. [online] Available at: https://teflpedia.com/Main_Page [Accessed: 2020-05-30].

(33)

8. Appendices

Appendix 1 Questionnaire

Rättstavningsprogram och stavningsinlärning

Syftet med denna enkät är att undersöka attityder kring rättstavningsprograms påverkan på

andraspråkanvändares stavningsinlärning. Alla svar som registreras i undersökningen är anonyma och används i specifikt syfte som material för ett arbete på Högskolan i Halmstad. Enkäten är frivillig och går att avbryta när som helst under påbörjad medverkan.

Tack för din medverkan! //Amanda & Jonna

1. Anser du att rättstavningsprogrammen bidrar till din stavningsinlärning?

❏ Ja

❏ Till viss del ❏ Nej

❏ Annat...

2. Varför/varför inte? (På vilket sätt hjälper det eller hindrar detta din inlärning?) 3. När ett rättstavningsprogram markerar en felstavning du gjort, använder du

detta som ett hjälpmedel för inlärning eller rättar du bara felet och går vidare?

❏ Jag rättar endast felet och skriver vidare

❏ Jag försöker komma ihåg stavningen, en ofta stavar jag fel på samma ord igen ❏ Jag lägger ordet på minnet för att inte stava del på det nästa gång

❏ Annat...

4. Skulle man kunna utveckla rättstavningsprogrammen för att dessa skulle fungera bättre som stöd för din stavningsinlärning? (Om ja, hur?)

(34)

Appendix 2 Data questionnaire-question 2

Categories: Visual learning Autocorrect Quick fix Individual responsibility

Jag ser hur orden stavas och därmed lär jag mig hur de stavas

För den rättar automatiskt och då tänker du inte hur eller vad du skriver/skrev

För att det blir rätt utan att man behöver ändra det själv. Man lär sig inte, datorn gör de bara åt en. Det ger dig ”tips” på hur du ska stava orden och sätter dem i en mening

.

man lär sig bra

Det hjälper inte inlärningen men det sparar mycket mera tid, för man hinner inte kolla upp hur alla ord stavas mycket bättre med programmet.

om man skriver ett ord fel rättas det på datorn och då ser man vad man gjort fel och kan lära sig av hur det egentligen ska stavas

Om man stavat fel och den sedan ändrar till rätta så kan man se vilket stavfel man gjorde och det handlar oftast bara om någon enskild bokstav men som är viktigt för stavningen

Det hjälper eftersom man ser var man själv gjorde för fel stavning samtidigt som man får det korrekta ordet.

Auto-rättstava gör ingen skillnad när du lär dig språk. Bättre blir det om det är rödmarkerat under ordet och därmed får man rätta det själv.

Jag lär mig hur man stavar med hjälp av rättstavningsprogram om jag aktivt tittar på vad jag gjorde fel innan jag rättar

Jag lär mig inte det som jag stavat fel om dessa inställningar finns då det automatiskt rättar när jag har fel.

jag tycker inte att de hjälper jätte mycket då man bara vill att de röda understruckna ska försvinna så de inget man lägger märke till

Ja, olika texter man får läsa.

Ofta så ändras ordet från fel stavat så som jag har skrivit det till rätt innan jag ens har sätt att mitt ord var felstavat. Jag ser ofta bara att jag har skrivit fel men inte hur jag har skrivit jämfört med hur det egentligen ska stavas. Jag klickar bara på knappen som ändrar min stavning.

Man skriver inte ordet själv på papper

Det kan hjälpa då man gång på gång ser hur ett ord stavas, och därmed kanske kan skriva det själv tillslut och inte använda sig av hjälpmedlet. Samtidigt som att det kan hindra inlärningen då man aldrig behöver skriva det själv, då hade man nog lärt sig snabbare.