The role of autocorrect software use in learning English as a foreign language

Rahimi, M.; Shahryari, A.

doi:10.22061/jte.2019.4331.2048

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2019.4331.2048

Abstract

Background and Objective:With the expansion of technology infrastructure and the increasing penetration of smartphones, the use of new technologies and applications among the general public, especially the younger generation, is increasing rapidly. The use of these applications not only increases social communication in the context of cyberspace, but also can accelerate and facilitate the process of homework and student projects from the beginning (resource search) to the end (report writing). Obviously, the use of new technologies requires the use of special skills and strategies for successful and beneficial interaction with virtual environments and technology. Research on information literacy provides a long list of skills needed by technology users in the 21st century to manage the challenges of using new technology tools. Definitely one of the basic and important skills that is needed when working with word processors is typing words quickly and correctly to enter data and receive appropriate feedback from the system or other users. The ability to type quickly and insert words correctly is essential in the use of cyberspace and the effective use of many applications, and not mastering how to enter information correctly can disrupt the process of installing or running applications. This study aimed at examining the role of autocorrect software use in learning English as a foreign language.
Methods: 203 university students of General English courses participated in the study. Their use of autocorrect software was evaluated by Autocorrect Software Use Scale (ASUS). ASUS assesses autocorrect software use with respect to five components including the importance of spelling skills in learning English with autocorrect, students’ awareness of the way autocorrect works, its educational value, its error correction function, and its value in improving English spelling and writing skills. Achievement in learning English was assessed by both formative and summative evaluations in General English course. The data were analyzed by both descriptive (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (correlation and regression methods).
Findings: The results of correlation showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between learning English and ASUS and its four components; while the strongest correlations were related to factor 1, the importance of spelling skills in learning English (r= .215, p < .01) and factor 3, educational value of autocorrect software (r= .214, p < .01). The result of multiple regressions revealed that these factors function as the facilitator of learning English and can significantly predict more than 10% of its variance.
Conclusion:
The present study showed that the attitude towards using automatic word correction software has a significant relationship with learning English as a foreign language. The importance of spelling skills and awareness of the educational value of software was one of the facilitating components of language learning, while the general language course focuses on vocabulary learning, reading, and learning techniques. It is suggested that research be conducted on the role of automated software in classes that focus more on oral skills. The role of these software programs in sending text messages via SMS or micro-blogs (such as Twitter) in language learning should also be examine

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1398.13.3.3.8

Main Subjects

Educational Technology

COPYRIGHTS
©2019 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1]Wood N. Autocorrect awareness: Categorizing autocorrect changes and measuring authorial perceptions, (master’s thesis), Florida University, US; 2014.

[2] Baron D. A better pencil: Readers, writers, and the digital revolution. Oxford: Oxford Unviersity Press; 2009.

[3] Sorrentino J. Is spell check creating a generation of dummies? Education.com. N.p., 11 Jan. 2008. Web. 08 Oct. 2013; 2008.

[4] Ross K. Does text messaging hurt student writing skills: Teachers say text messages r ruining kids’ riting skills. American Teacher; 2007.

[5] Leki I, Cumming A, Silvia T. A synthesis of research on second language writing. UK: Routledge; 2008.

[6] Weigle SC. Considerations for teaching second language writing. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, and M. A. Snow (Eds), Teaching English a second or foreign language (pp. 222-237). US: Heinle; 2014.

[7] Zamel V. The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly. 1983; 17(2): 165-187.

[8] Ferris DR, Roberts B. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2001; 10: 161-184.

[9] Li M. Use of Wikis in second/foreign language classes: A literature review. CALL-EJ. 2012; 13: 17-35.

[10] Daffern T, Mackenzie N, Hemmings B. Predictors of writing success: How important are spelling, grammar and punctuation? Australian Journal of Education. 2017; 61(1): 75-87.

[11] Dich NL. Cross-linguistic study of spelling in English as a foreign language: The role of first language orthography in EFL spelling, (doctoral dissertation), Cornell University, US; 2012.

[12] Mehrpour S, Ghayour M. The effect of educational computerized games on learning English spelling among Iranian children. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal. 2017; 17(2): 165-178.

[13] Nichols LM. Pencil and paper versus word processing: A Comparative study of creative writing in the elementary school. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 1996; 29: 159-166.

[14] Warschauer M. Computer and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching. 1998; 31(2): 57-71.

[15] Phinney M, Khouri S. Computers, revision, and ESL writers: The role of experience. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1993; 2(3): 257-277.

[16] Beck N, Fetherston T. The effects of incorporating a word processor into a year three writing program. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual. 2003; 1: 139-161.

[17] Hayles NK. How we think: Digital media and contemporary technogenesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.

[18] Wood LA, Rankin JL, Beukelman DR. Word prompt programs: Current uses and future possibilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 1997; 6(3): 57-65.

[19] Newell AF, Booth L, Arnott J, Beattie W. Increasing literacy levels by the use of linguistic prediction. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 1992; 8(2): 138-187.

[20] Lewis R. Enhancing the writing skills of students with learning disabilities through technology: An investigation of the effects of text entry tools, editing tools, and speech synthesis; 1998.

[21] Sheehan C. Spell-check crutch curtails correctness. CBSNews. CBS Interactive; 2009.

[22] Clark L. Auto-correct generation can't spell common words such as 'necessary' and 'separate' Mail Online. N.p., 21 May 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2013; 2013.

[23] Hiscox L, Leonavičiūtė E, Humby T.

The effects of automatic spelling correction software on understanding and comprehension in compensated Dyslexia: Improved recall following dictation. Dyslexia. 2014; 20(3): 208-24.

[24] Alhusban A. The impact of modern technological tools on students writing skills in English as a second language. US-China Education Review. 2016; 6(7), 438-443.

[25] Bronowicki KA. Technology's adverse effects on students' writing: An emphasis on formal writing is needed in an academic curriculum, (Unpublished master’s thesis), State University of New York College at Brockport, US; 2014.

[26] Arif AS, Sylla C, Mazalek A. Learning new words and spelling with autocorrections. In ISS ’16 Proc. of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces (pp. 409-414), Ontario, Canada; 2016.

[27] McSweeney MA. I text English to everyone: Links between second-language texting and academic proﬁciency. Languages. 2017; 2(7), 1-15.

[28] Honarvar A, Jalalipour J. General English readings (10^th ed). Tehran: SRTTU Press; 2016.

[29] Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (5^th ed). Boston: Pearson Education. 2007.

[30] Nejati R, Ashrafi HR. Statistics made simple. Tehran: SRTTU Press; 2017. Persian.

[31] Techrasa. 53 million mobile Internet users in Iran until March 2018; 2018.

[32] Naevdal F. Home-PC usage and achievement in English. Computers & Education. 2007;49: 1112–1121.

[33] Shankweilert D, Lundquist E. (1993). On the relations between learning to spell and learning to read. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research. 1993; SR-113: 135-144.

[34] Rahimi M, Miri SS. Technology use and acceptance among pre-service teachers of English as a Foreign Language: The case of a learning management system and an educational blog. In J. E. Aitken (Ed.), Cases on communication technology for second language acquisition and cultural learning (pp. 87-107). US: IGI Global; 2015. [35] Tran L. Learners’ motivation and identity in the Vietnamese EFL writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 2007; 6(1): 151-163.

[36] Abulafia D. Art of essay-writing damaged by Twitter and Facebook; 2013.

[37] Alqunayeer HS. The impact of teaching through Twitter on students’ vocabulary learning: A case study of Qassim University. World Journal of English. 2016; 6(2):35-43.

[38] Carrington V. (2005). Txting: The end of civilization (again)? Cambridge Journal of Education. 2005; 35: 161-75.

[39] Plester, B, Wood C, Bell V. Txt msg n school literacy: Does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children’s literacy attainment? Literacy. 2008; 42: 137-44.

[40] Mittal R. Is texting really hurting our literary skills: How to overcome its effects. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2015; 20(10): 1-5.

[41] Land Nystrom R. Autocorrect – friend or foe? Helping students become better writers in a digital world; 2017.