Author: Adams, Stavri

Title: Improving Students’ Spelling in English: A

Proposal for an Action Research

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a suggestion for an action research project aiming to
improve the Qatari-Arab EFL students’ persistent errors in their spelling which are
often attributed to the differences between the English and the Arabic typology.
Conclusions suggest that vigorous research from the part of the EFL teacher on the
students’ spelling errors and active research and collaboration between EFL
instructors may bring optimal results on the learners’ improvement of their spelling in
English.

Keywords: Action Research (AR); Qatar; persistent errors; EFL

1.1 Introduction

A frequent phenomenon occurring among many Arab EFL learners is the persistent or
fossilised errors in their English production (Emam, 1972; Ibrahim, 1978; Mukkatash,
1981, 1986; El-Hibir and Al-Taha, 1992; Moretimer, 2001; Ajlouni, 2002; Al-Mounla,
2002; Hasyim, 2002; Khammash and Roos, 2002; Abisamra, 2003; Bataineh, 2005;
Mahmoud, 2005, 2011; El-Tayeb, 2006; Jarad, 2008; Al-Khresheh, 2010; Faqara, 2010;
Shahin, 2011). Raising EFL students’ awareness on the words’ spelling may be a
challenge for many EFL instructors who teach writing in Arab countries as many
learners tend to repeat the same errors even after having had several exposures to the
same word item (Emam, 1972; Ibrahim, 1978; Thomson-Panos and Thomas-Ruzic,

© University of Southampton 1
1983; El-Hibir and Al-Taha, 1992; Bloodgood, 1991; Varasarin, 2007) or even after
progressing to higher grade at school (Bialystok and Smith, 1985; Wissing, 1988;
Selinker, 1992; Nakuma, 1998; Maliwa, 2005). In this paper, more light will be shed
into this problem and an action research for a more efficient way of de-fossilising
spelling errors will be proposed.

1.2 Definition of Terms

1.2.1 Action Research (AR)

This type of investigation is claimed to be optimal for improving teachers’ efficiency

taking into consideration the situation under which classroom instruction takes place.
Moreover, it relates to a repetitive process of examination, evaluation and performance
emphasizing the teachers’ active role in the provision of evaluative feedback and
conducting research to treat problems that might arise in the classroom (Hult and
Lennung, 1980; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1982; Kumaradivelou, 2001; Zeichner, 2001;
Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009; Burns, 2010).

1.2.2 Errors

Although the notion of errors has often been separated from the mistakes, which relate
to the infrequent and accidental language production, in this AR proposal errors are
perceived under the prism of Allwright’s (1975) view that any error is a form of
linguistic production which is recurrent and untypical of the native English speakers’
linguistic production.

1.2.3 Fossilization

The most illustrious definitions of fossilization of errors in a foreign language was

provided by Corder (1971); Selinker (1972); Selinker and Lamendella (1978) who
maintained that learners’ errors might be subject to their L1 interference in the linguistic
system of the L2. Conducting action research on de-fossilising learners’ persistent
errors has proven to be invaluable in treating fossilised errors (Doney and Duchesne,
1992; Johnson, 1992; Varasarin, 2007; Lili and Hui, 2008; Boettinger et al., 2010; Cuet,
2011), yet Action Research in this area is still ongoing.

© University of Southampton 2
2.1 The EFL Classroom Situation

This action research proposal is intended for an intermediate level of English group of
Qatari students studying at a private college. Students’ ages range among 18-19 years
old. Upon completion of the course, they normally sit a high stakes written exam in
English which determines their suitability to gain a sponsored study in US Universities.

2.2 Identification of the Students’ Problem

During the first two months of instructing writing skills development in EFL,
orthographic errors resistant to correction, were identified as their problematic area.
Failure to produce accuracy in the spelling of English texts even after correction may
predicate students’ unsuccessful exam result in the finals since words’ spelling is one
of the primary criteria upon which students will be assessed on.

Therefore, it is considered that developing students’ orthographic precision may enable

them to meet the exam’s standards and make it possible for them to get the scholarship
to the US by means of achieving a high mark on the exams in English writing.

2.3 Justification of the Arab Learners’ Orthographic

Inaccuracies in English

Arab learners’ persistence on committing numerous types of spelling errors in English

is based on the underlying principle of typological variance between the two writing
systems which appears to have a variety of distinct attributes Hasyim, 2002; Khammash
and Roos, 2002; Abisamra, 2003; Bataineh, 2005; Mahmoud, 2005, 2011; Thomson-
Panos and Thomas-Ruzic, 1983). It has been claimed that contrastive analyses may not
always be accurate in predicting learners’ error difficulties in writing (Schachter 1974;
Bialystok and Smith, 1985). However a brief exemplification of the Arabic
predominant characteristics in writing which may cause errors in spelling is provided
as an example (Thomson-Panos and Thomas-Ruzic, 1983).

To demonstrate this, the differences in the alphabet might be a challenge for Arab EFL
learners as both Arabic and English are typologically different from one another
(Thomson-Panos and Thomas-Ruzic, 1983). In addition, the process of writing each
word in Arabic begins from right to left, while the reverse happens in English.

© University of Southampton 3
Furthermore, short vowels are not spelled in Arabic but pronounced in oral speech
(Azzam, 1989; Thomson-Panos and Thomas-Ruzic, 1983; Ryan and Meara, 1991),
while the opposite occurs in English.

The aforementioned sources of differences between Arabic and English writing patterns
were suggested as possible grounds based on which Arab EFL learners’ orthographic
inaccuracies may stem from (Emam, 1972; Ibrahim, 1978; Thomson-Panos and
Thomas-Ruzic, 1983; Haggan, 1991; El-Hibir and Al-Taha, 1992).

3.1 Sources of Evidence

A suitable data collection instrument was necessary to be implemented in order to detect

learners’ areas of fossilised errors. To achieve this, the EFL writing instructor is
expected to conduct qualitative research in order to observe learners’ written behavior.

3.2 Written Samples Collection

The evidence for the data collection will be based on a weekly collection of students’
written production in English. This practice will enable the EFL instructor to have a
continuous overview of their development spelling accuracy as well as identify their
needs. The second step will be to code the data by creating lists with the most prominent
misspelt word items based on the number of occurrences of the misspelt words per
student.

This data collection strategy will satisfy reliability and validity since it is a suitable
means for researching students’ orthographic errors in their written production and
observe their needs in correcting their spelling. Also, the coding process of learners’
errors and the identification of their weaknesses based on a reference list will verify the
problematic areas between the students fulfilling the goals of the proposed AR project
(Wallace, 1997).

4.1 Hypothesis Setting

Since the Qatari Arab EFL learners appear to have a significant need to improve their
accuracy in spelling of the English words, it is necessary to provide a recommendation
for further action in order to facilitate the process of de-fossilization. More specifically,

© University of Southampton 4
it is anticipated that if the teacher continuously keeps track of the misspelled words
written by students and counting their frequency, he/she might:

 be more able to observe learners’ needs based on a categorized word list of

misspelt items.
 make it possible to provide therapeutic feedback to his/her students’ needs
based on a frequency list of misspelt items.

4.2 Setting up the AR Question

Since the overall goal of this AR proposal is to improve learners’ spelling accuracy in
their written production of English, the following general questions may arise:

- To what extent can the students’ writing skills be improved by carrying out this
AR?
- Will the AR intervention be effective in the long term?

4.3 Action Plan

4.3.1 Conscious Raising Activity

Upon investigating learners’ needs, a new activity is proposed for immediate treatment
of students’ spelling errors’ based on collected data (see section 3.2) on the ground that
students should be given some time for realization of errors and self correction (Holley
and King, 1974; Walz, 1982; Hernquist et al., 1993).

To illustrate this, the follow-up action plan will involve the following steps:

4.3.1.1 Step 1

Before the class, the instructor consults the error frequency list that s/he created (section
3.2) and prepares some flashcards. Each flashcard may have one misspelt word item
based on the most frequently misspelt words appearing on the list created after the
investigation.

4.3.1.2 Step 2

The teacher dedicates the last 15 minutes of each class for the flashcards distribution to
groups of 4 or 5 students.

© University of Southampton 5
4.3.1.3 Step 3

Students will be allowed 5 minutes to identify the error in the flashcard and explain the
rules that underlie the spelling in each word to their group.

4.3.1.4 Step 4

Volunteer(s) from each group will share with the rest of the class the problem appearing
in the flashcard and explain the error to the class, its’ correct form and the underlying
rule(s) for it.

4.3.2 Observation and Continuing Research

The teacher should observe improvements in students’ spelling accuracy over a period
of one month in order to either continue with the proposed 4-step action plan or generate
a new one based on the feedback received.

5.1 Expected Outcomes

Although it seems that this project might consume time and effort from the part of the
teacher, as well as resources on printed materials of the institution. It is anticipated that
by encouraging group work, students may be provided with opportunities to offer and
receive peer feedback on their spelling errors (Mooko, 1993).

Also, learners may have the opportunity to dedicate time in order to realize their errors
and conceptualize the spelling rules for each word (Bloodgood, 1991). It is further
considered that dedicating time on a single item in class might provide opportunities to
students for self-correction (Corder, 1973) satisfying the goals of this AR project.

5.2 Evaluation and Conclusion

This AR proposal aims to treat students’ fossilised errors by suggesting a conscious

raising activity. It is anticipated that the proposed 4-step action plan (section 4.1) may
be a therapeutic intervention in the Arab EFL learners’ fossilised errors in spelling.
Improving the students’ accuracy in English spelling will enable the students to meet
their goals and offer them more opportunities for successfully responding to the high-
stakes exam they are currently preparing themselves for.

© University of Southampton 6
Selected References

Abisamra, N. 2003: An analysis of errors in Arabic speakers' English writings.

Al-Ajlouni, M. 2002: Contrastive analysis and diaglossia. International Journal of
Arabic-English Studies 8, 151-158.
Al-Khresheh, M. 2010: Interlingual interference in the English language word order
structure of Jordanian EFL learners. European Journal of Social Sciences 16 (1), 105-
116.

© University of Southampton 7
Allwright, R. L. 1975: Problems in the Study of the Language Teachers Treatment of
Learner Error. In Burt, M.,K. and Dulay, H.,C. (ed.) New Direction in Second
Language Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education.TESOL.

Al-Mounla, I. 2002: Direct negative feedback: The eternal dilemma. Proceedings of

the second national conference, Language Centre, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat,
27-28 March.
Azzam, R. 1989: Orthography and reading of the Arabic Language. In Aaron, P., G.,
Joshi, R., M. (ed.) Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems.
Kluwer.

Bataineh, R. 2005: Jordanian undergraduate EFL students' errors in the use of the
definite article. Asian EFL Journal 7 (1), 56-76.
Bialystok, E., Smith, S., M. 1985: Interlanguage is not a state of mind: an evaluation
of the construct for second –language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 6 (2), 101-117.
Bloodgood, J., W. 1991: A new approach to spelling instruction in language arts
programs. Elementary School Journal 92 (2), 203-211.

Boettinger, F., Park, J., Timmis, I. 2010: Self-directed noticing for defossilissation:
three case studies. International Journal of English Studies 10 (1), 43-64.

Burns, A. 2010: Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. A Guide for
Practitioners. Routledge .

Corder, S. P. 1971: Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis. International Review of

Applied Linguistics 9 (2), 60-147.

Corder, S. P. 1973: Introducing Applied Linguistics, Penguin.

Cochran-Smith, M., Lytle, S. 2009: Teacher research as stance. In Noffke, S. (ed.)

The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. Sage Publications.

Cuet, C. 2011: Enseigner le français en Chine, methodologies nouvelles, perspectives.

Synergies 6, 95-103.

© University of Southampton 8
Doney, D., Duchesne, H. 1992: La recherché-action dans la classe d’immersion et la
correction d’une erreur d’expression orale. Cahiers Franco-Canadiens Del’ Ouest 4
(1), 57-70.

El-Hibir, B., I., Al-Taha, F., M. 1992: Orthographic errors of Saudi students learning
English. The Language Learning Journal 5 (1), 85-87.
El-Tayeb, C. 2006: The Influence of language one: An analytical study of the
difficulties faced by students at SQU in using English prepositions. Unpublished MA
Thesis, University of Central England.
Emam, M. 1972: Analysis of Written English in Egyptian Secondary Schools.
Unpublished M. A. Thesis, UWIST.
Haggan, M. 1991: Spelling errors in native Arabic-speaking English majors: A
comparison between remedial students and fourth year students. System 19 (2), 45-61.
Hasyim, S. 2002: Error analysis in the teaching of English. Jurusan Sastra, Fakultas
Sastra, Universitas Kristen Petra 4 (1), 42-50.
Holley, F., M., King, J., K. 1974: Imitation and Correction in Foreign Language
Learning: New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. Newbury House.

Ibrahim, M., H. 1978: Patterns in spelling errors. English Language Teaching 32, (3),
207-212.
Johnson, H. 1992: Defossilizing. ELT Journal 46 (2), 180-189.

Kemmis, S., Taggart, R. 1982: The action research planner. Victoria Deakin
University Press.

Khammash, S., Roos, C. 2002: Why do our students keep making the same
mistakes? Proceedings of the second national conference, Language Centre,
Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, 27-28 March.

Kumaradivelu, B. 2001: Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 28 (4),

536-560.
Lili, C., Hui, J. 2008: A tentative view of constractive language learning from
interlangiage and its fossilization. Journal of Changchun University of Science and
Teachnology 1, 1-10.
Mahmoud, A. 2005: Interlingual transfer in foreign language learning: A critical
survey of the second half of the past century. The Educational Journal 20 (1), 11-45.

© University of Southampton 9
Mahmoud, A. 2011: The role of interlingual and intralingual transfer in learner-
centered EFLvocabulary instruction. Arab World English Journal 2 (1), 28-49.
Maliwa, K., G. 2005: Fossilisation in the written English of Xosa speaking students
during their FET phase. Unpublished MA thesis, University of South Africa.
Mooko, T. 1993: Effectiveness of peer feedback and self-assessment: micro level
errors in students’ writing. Journal for Language Study 35 (2), 160-169.
Moretimer, K. 2001: Common errors of English in Lebanon. Notre Dame University
Press.
Mukattash, L. 1981: WH-questions in English: A problem for Arab students.
International Review of Applied Linguistics 19 (1), 317-331.
Mukkatash, L. 1986: Persistence of fossilization. IRAL 14 (3), 187-203.

Nakuma, C., K. 1998: A new theoretical account of fossilization: implications for L2

attrition”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in language teaching 36 (3),
247-256.
Selinker, L. 1992: Rediscovering interlanguage. Longaman.
Varasarin, P. 2007: An action research study of pronunciation training, language
learning strategies and speaking confidence. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, School of
Education, Victoria University.

Ryan, A., Meara, P. 1991: The case of the invisible vowels: Arabic speakers reading
English words. Reading in a Foreign Language 7 (2), 531-540.

Selinker, L. 1972: Inter-Language, IRAL 10 (1), 209-231.

Selinker, L., Lamendella J.,T. 1978: Two Perspectives on Fossilization in

Interlanguage Learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3 (2), 143-191.
Schachter, J. 1974: An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24 (2), 205-214.

Shahin, N. 2011: Error treatment in TESOL classrooms. Jordan Journal of Applied

Science Humanities Series 13 (1), 207-226.

Thomson-Panos, K., Thomas-Ruzic, M. 1983: The least you should know about
Arabic: Implications for the ESL writing instructor. TESOL Quarterly 17 (4), 609-
623.

© University of Southampton 10
Wallace, M. J. 1997: Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge University
Press.

Waltz, J.C. 1982: Error Correction Techniques for the Classroom, Prentice-Hall.

Wissing, R.J. 1988: Language contact and interference in the acquisition of English
proficiency by Bantuspeaking students. Unpublished MA dissertation. University of
Pretoria (Unisa).
Zeighner, K. 2001: Educational action research. In Reason, P. (ed.) Handbook of
Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage Publications.

© University of Southampton 11