Enhancing the Proper Usage of Spelling in Writing Composition among ESL Learners

Enhancing the Proper Usage of Spelling in Writing Composition among ESL Learners

AM.M. Ajifan¹, M.J.F. Sujani², M.B. Nowzath³, S. Umashankar⁴

^1,2,3Department of English, Sri Lanka Institute of Advanced Technological Education

⁴Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Arts and Culture, Eastern University of Sri Lanka

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010341

Received: 14 January 2025; Accepted: 18 January 2025; Published: 21 February 2025

ABSTRACT

This research investigates Enhancing the proper usage of spelling in writing composition among ESL learners among G.C.E. O/L students of KM/KM/Pulavarmani Sharfudheen Maha Vidyalaya, Maruthamunai. As second language learners, these students face significant challenges in mastering accurate spelling, which impacts their writing fluency and overall academic performance. The study aimed to identify common spelling errors, analyze their root causes, and implement interventions to improve spelling accuracy. These interventions included explicit instruction in phonetics, regular spelling drills, peer review activities, and the use of digital tools such as spelling applications. A mixed-method approach was employed, combining diagnostic assessments, classroom observations, and student feedback to gain insights into the challenges and effectiveness of the strategies. Pre- and post-tests were conducted to evaluate the impact of these measures, revealing a significant reduction in spelling errors and an increase in students’ confidence in writing. The findings of the study emphasize the importance of innovative, context-specific teaching methods in addressing the spelling difficulties of second language learners and provide valuable insights for educators striving to enhance English writing proficiency in similar educational contexts.

Keywords: Spelling Errors, Writing Composition, ESL Learners, Error Analysis, Proper Usage

INTRODUCTION

The study, “Enhancing the Proper Usage of Spelling in Writing Composition Among ESL Learners of G.C.E. Ordinary Level (O/L),” explores the challenges faced by Sri Lankan students in mastering English spelling, a crucial sub-skill of writing that significantly impacts effective communication and academic success. English, recognized as a global language and the second language in Sri Lanka, is essential for education and career advancement. However, due to the irregularity of English spelling and its complex cognitive demands, even native speakers encounter difficulties (Data & Esther, 2015). For ESL learners, errors such as omissions, substitutions, insertions, and transpositions are common, reflecting interference from their first language and inadequate exposure to systematic spelling instruction (Cook, 1997). Despite over ten years of English education, Sri Lankan students struggle with mechanical accuracy in writing, leading to poor performance in tasks like the O/L English paper, where errors in spelling result in significant loss of marks. This study seeks to identify and analyze these recurring issues and proposes targeted strategies to enhance students’ spelling proficiency (Asma, 2017; Hagege, 1993).

The study aims to improve spelling accuracy among ESL learners at KM/KM Pulavarmani Sharfudheen Maha Vidyalaya. Its objectives include identifying common types of spelling errors, understanding their causes, examining their impact on students’ academic performance, exploring strategies for correcting these errors, and recommending effective teaching aids and exercises. Correspondingly, the research questions address the types and causes of spelling errors, their influence on students’ performance, potential correction strategies, and suitable teaching resources to enhance spelling proficiency.

The research gap in this study on improving English spelling among second-language learners is primarily centered on the limited exploration of effective interventions for spelling errors in diverse second-language contexts, particularly in Sri Lanka. While existing research has focused on general language acquisition, there is a lack of studies addressing the specific challenges second-language learners face in Sri Lanka, especially regarding spelling errors in written compositions. This study fills several key gaps: it explores the unique challenges faced by learners in rural and under-resourced areas, introduces targeted interventions like phonics exercises and mnemonics that have not been widely researched in Sri Lanka, and utilizes a comprehensive data collection approach that combines pre-and post-tests, interviews, and observations. Moreover, it addresses the often-overlooked psycholinguistic factors contributing to spelling errors, such as pronunciation issues, a lack of grammatical understanding, and student motivation. By examining these areas, the study offers valuable insights into effective, context-specific strategies for improving spelling accuracy among ESL learners, particularly in the Sri Lankan educational environment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review explores the enhancement of English spelling proficiency among second-language learners, particularly focusing on grade eleven students. It delves into definitions and historical perspectives on English spelling, the significance of mastering spelling, and the analysis of spelling errors. Spelling is defined as forming words correctly according to established rules (Hornby, 2000, as cited in Mihiretu Miressa, 2011). Historically, English spelling evolved through influences from various languages, technological advancements like the printing press, and phonological changes such as the Great Vowel Shift (Fennell, 2006). Despite its alphabetic system, English lacks a one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds, leading to complexities in learning and usage (Kemmer, 2009). Errors are systematic deviations caused by learners’ incomplete mastery of language rules (Corder, 1967). Error analysis, as described by James (1998) and others, involves studying and categorizing errors to identify underlying issues in language acquisition. Various types of spelling errors—such as omissions, additions, substitutions, and transpositions—have been identified, with Bestgen and Granger’s (2011) framework providing a detailed classification. These insights underscore the importance of understanding and addressing spelling challenges to improve learners’ proficiency.

Lekamge and Upul (2018), indicated the use of supplementary reading Materials to reduce spelling errors among Sri Lankan second language learners: with reference to grade six students of Sri Shylanthayathana Sunday School of Habarakada, Sri Lanka. This study found out that the children were aided with supplementary reading materials in the Sunday school library like simple story books either they can borrow or read. It is defined through the pre-test (five) and post-test were conducted within sixteenth weeks after the pre-test.

Cook (1992), examined the extent to which L2 users’ knowledge of sound/letter rules and of individual visual items reflects their different Ll systems of spelling and pronunciation. Hence, the researcher compared adult L2 learners and adult and children’s native speakers. Results revealed that, on average, a fifteen-year-old native speaker’s spelling errors are similar in number to those of an adult L2 learner. The researcher concluded that spelling is so important due to its “social overtones”.

Moreover, Smith and Swan (2001) indicated that spelling errors are noticeable among Arab students due to the existence of linguistic differences in both languages English and Arabic while spelling errors are found to be less among other non-Arabic students as their languages share more similarities with English. The studies related to Arab spelling errors are few and the majority of these studies focus on the spelling difficulties that Arab students face in learning EFL (Al-Jarf, 2005). Al-Jarf, (2005) conducted a study in Saudi Arabia to investigate the correlation between spelling and listening comprehension among students. The findings indicated that EFL students’ percentage of spelling errors was found to be 41.5% of the words with 49.5% correct responses to the questions in the listening comprehension test and 52% correct answers on the decoding test.

Al-Jabri (2006) conducted a study on 114 Omani fifth-grade students in two rural schools to investigate their spelling errors. IO- A Word spelling test was conducted on the students to collect data. The findings revealed that omission and substitution were the most frequent errors while transposition and insertion errors were found to be less frequent. In the United Arab Emirates, Al-Ta’ani (2006) investigated the spelling errors in 200 students’ writing at the secondary stage. After classifying and identifying the location of spelling errors in the words, the findings indicated that most spelling errors occur in the middle of misspelled words.

Furthermore, Alhaisoni et al. (2015) conducted a study in Saudi Arabia on 122 EFL undergraduate students at the University of Ha’il to examine the types of spelling errors in English composition. Data were collected through writing tasks of 53 males and 69 females in the preparatory year. The findings indicated that omission errors are considered the highest among students. The majority of spelling errors are centralized around the wrong use of vowels and pronunciation. The findings indicated that spelling errors occur as a result of anomalies existing in L2 as well as L1 interference.

According to Alhaisoni et al. (2015), few research studies focus on the issue of spelling errors, and very few studies investigated the Arab EFL spelling errors difficulties. Moreover, most of the studies devoted to Arab EFL students are in their home countries which urges the need for studies about Arab students’ spelling errors in foreign countries. Therefore, Iraqi EFL students’ spelling errors in Malaysian universities will be addressed in the current study to bridge the gap in the literature.

To sum up, it is clear that many studies have been conducted on spelling errors in different contexts such as Canadian, Chinese, Singapore, and Arabs. It also can be seen from the literature that spelling errors have not been studied sufficiently in the Tamil context. Hence, through this literature review, there is a research gap prevailing in the research area to fill that gap, this research has been done at KM/Pulavarmani Sharfudheen Vidyalaya under the title of Enhancing English Spelling Errors on the use of pre and posttest in writing composition among grade Eleven students.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology of this study focuses on enhancing English spelling in writing composition among Grade Eleven students at KM/KM/Pulavarmani Sharfudheen Maha Vidyalaya. It employs a structured research design incorporating both qualitative and quantitative approaches, with data collected through pre-tests, post-tests, and interviews. The study uses an action research framework, involving planning, intervention, observation, and reflection to address spelling errors in writing. Initial assessments identified participants who demonstrated challenges with English spelling. The intervention included targeted lessons using strategies such as dictionary use, mnemonics, and structured activities. Observations revealed active participation, particularly among female students, although challenges such as poor interest and pronunciation issues persisted for some. Post-tests measured progress, showing improvement among most participants. Data analysis involved identifying error types, calculating percentages of errors, and evaluating pre-and post-test results. Statistical techniques such as descriptive tables and charts, created using Excel, were employed to present findings and draw conclusions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and analysis of the study, focusing on enhancing proper spelling usage in English writing composition among ESL learners in Grade Eleven at KM/KM/Pulavarmani Sharfudheen Maha Vidyalaya. The study followed an action research process beginning with identifying the problem: significant spelling challenges among second-language learners. Intervention strategies included phonics-based exercises, dictation activities, peer feedback, and the use of technology tools to address these issues. Data collection involved pre-and post-tests, writing samples, surveys, and teacher feedback. Results are analyzed using descriptive statistics, presented in tables and charts, to illustrate the effectiveness of the interventions and the student’s progress.

Pre-Test Analysis

This part of the analysis explains the pre-test to identify the major type of English spelling error in writing composition among second language learners in the particular school G.C.E. O/Level students. Also, the pre-test was divided into three parts, there were structure questions, dictation, and essay writing. These are analyzed below one by one with helping of tables and chards through the Marks and percentages.

Pre-Intervention Spelling Errors:

Present an overview of the spelling errors observed before the intervention. Identify the most common types of errors:

• Phonetic errors (e.g., “definitely” instead of “definitely”)
• Homophone confusion (e.g., “there” vs. “their”)
• Silent letter mistakes (e.g., “knit” instead of “knight”)
• Overgeneralization of rules (e.g., “runned” instead of “ran”)
• Typographical errors (e.g., “ocurr” instead of “occur”)

Figure 1: Pre-Intervention Spelling Error

A total of students answers all questions of structure questions of a pre-test. In this spelling error test, the results revealed that some types of English spelling errors were found among second language learners, especially in their writing composition. Table (4.1) analyzed five types of spelling errors in English among particular students in writing composition. There were substitution, omission, Transmission, and insertion.

Types of Structured Questions Test

This question pattern indicated 20. Every question had some missing words. Students wanted to fill the gap using suitable words without any spelling errors. Hence this part is analysed with tables.

Figure 2: Students Obtained Marks for the SQ Pre-Test

According to the above bar chart, twenty-seven students faced a structured test that had twenty questions, and every student wanted to answer twenty (20) questions in this particular section. So, evaluated marks indicated the right spelling of each sentence (structure question). In this respect, 26% of students achieved more than 50 Marks. That means, 48 Percentage of students (3) out of 35% (7) students achieved 60% marks, and 55 marks had been obtained by 28.5% of students (2) out of seven. One student (14%) scored 50 marks and the other one’s (14%) 65 marks out of a hundred.

And 74% of students’ total responders answered the questions less than ten to structure questions only indicating 50% of all questions. This section found out through the analyzing that one student got no points, another obtained only five (5) marks and another one answered only ten 10% out of 100 marks on this test. Also, four students faced two questions correctly out of fifteen as well as six students got three marks in a particular pre-test of finding spelling errors in writing composition.

Then a discussion of this test pointed out that 18.5% of students had obtained 15 % marks, and that twenty (20) Marks had been scored by only six 33% of total students, continuously 7% of respondents got 25% Marks, which indicated 25 marks. Then, 3.7% of respondents (one student) obtained Thirty (30) marks out of twenty questions of the structure test in the pre-test (TEST-I) for identifying English spelling errors in writing composition.

Types of spelling errors

In line with the study, the following errors were uncounted by the samples in the written tasks.

Table 1: Types of Errors

Figure 3: Percentage of Spelling Mistakes Among Students

Post-Intervention Spelling Accuracy:

After presenting the pre-intervention results, provide data on the students’ spelling accuracy after the intervention.

Improvement: Highlight the improvements in spelling skills. For example, if phonetic errors decreased significantly or if the frequency of homophone errors reduced, make sure to clearly show these improvements.

Data Comparison: Compare the pre-and post-intervention data to quantify improvement.

Example:

• Phonetic errors were reduced to 25% after intervention.
• Homophone errors were reduced to 10% after intervention.
• Silent letter errors remained relatively stable at 15%.

Student Writing Samples: Provide examples of students’ improved writing compositions (with errors corrected) as evidence of progress.

Structure Questions of Post-Test

It evaluated the marks and percentage of structure questions of the post-test after the intervention process.

Figure 4: Students Obtained Marks for SQ in Post-Test

The above bar shows the students’ marks on structure questions of the post-test. Twenty students faced the particular test. 65 % of students scored 40 marks and above. Then, 15 % of students achieved fifty (50) and above, and one student obtained 60 marks out of twenty questions. However, 15 % of students got only less than 40 marks on this test.

Analysis of Essay Writing

In this section of discussion of this study, 10 % of students obtained 40 and above, and 20% of students obtained 50 marks out of 20 questions continuously, 60 and above it achieved by 40% of students out of twenty. However, 15 % of students got only less than 40 marks on this test. An 80 was obtained as the highest mark for essay writing by one student after the intervention process.

Figure 5: Students obtained Marks for essay writing in Post-Test

Analysis and Interpretation of the Findings

In this section, you will analyse the data and interpret the results.

Phonetic Errors:

Analysis: Phonetic errors were among the most common before the intervention, as expected in English spelling due to its non-phonetic nature. The intervention likely helped students become more aware of irregular spelling patterns and exceptions.

Interpretation: The phonics-based activities and targeted instruction may have helped students distinguish between phonetic and non-phonetic spellings, leading to a reduction in these types of errors.

Homophone Errors:

Analysis: Errors involving homophones (such as “there,” “there,” and “they’re”) were also common in pre-intervention writing. These types of errors indicate a lack of understanding of contextual meaning.

Interpretation: The intervention activities, such as contextual exercises and peer feedback, likely helped students improve their understanding of homophones and their appropriate usage, as reflected in the reduction of such errors.

Connection to Literature: According to existing research (Author, Year), homophone confusion is one of the most persistent spelling challenges for second-language learners because it requires a solid grasp of contextual meaning and word function.

Silent Letter Errors:

Analysis: Silent letter errors are often difficult to correct because of the lack of correspondence between spelling and pronunciation in English.

Interpretation: While the intervention did reduce some errors, silent letter mistakes may not have shown a significant improvement. This could be because silent letters are often learned over time and need consistent practice.

Possible Solutions: Further exposure to spelling rules for silent letters, through activities like dictation or flashcards, could be explored in future interventions.

Overgeneralization of Spelling Rules:

Analysis: Overgeneralization of spelling rules (e.g., adding “ed” to form the past tense) was another common issue. This may indicate a lack of familiarity with irregular verb forms.

Interpretation: The intervention could have benefitted from more focus on irregular verbs and the teaching of specific exceptions to standard spelling rules. This would help students internalize patterns for words that don’t follow typical conjugation rules.

Typographical Errors:

Analysis: Typographical errors were relatively less frequent but still present.

Interpretation: These errors are likely linked to students’ typing speed and lack of attention rather than their understanding of spelling. These may improve with more focused writing practice.

Comparison with Existing Literature

Literature on Phonetic Errors:

Compare your findings on phonetic errors with the findings of other studies on second-language learners (e.g., [Author, Year]). Many studies have suggested that phonological awareness is a key factor in spelling, and your findings likely align with this.

Homophone Errors:

Compare your results with those from studies that suggest context-based spelling instruction can significantly reduce homophone errors. Mention how the contextual exercises in your study may have contributed to the improvement in student’s understanding of homophones.

Silent Letter and Overgeneralization:

Discuss the challenges related to silent letters and overgeneralization of spelling rules, supported by research from [Author, Year]. These are known issues in second-language spelling, and your findings may suggest that while intervention is helpful, these areas require more focused and repeated practice.

Implications for Practice

Effective Teaching Strategies:

Based on the findings, highlight the teaching strategies that were most effective in improving spelling, such as:

• Phonics instruction.
• Peer review activities.
• Contextual writing exercises.

Recommendations for Further Interventions:

• Suggest improvements or changes for future action research cycles.
• Propose additional focus on specific areas, such as irregular verbs or silent letters.

CONCLUSION

This study focused on improving English spelling among second-language learners and showed significant progress in students’ spelling abilities after the intervention. Pre- and post-test results revealed a 26.6% improvement in correct spelling. The research identified common spelling errors, including sound-based mistakes, omission, and transposition, and recommended strategies like mnemonics, using dictionaries, and learning correct pronunciation. Teachers were encouraged to promote thinking in the target language, explain grammar exceptions, and use varied teaching techniques like self-correction and peer reviews. Students were advised to actively use updated dictionaries and e-learning tools to improve their spelling. Future research should focus on addressing gaps in second-language learning, particularly in Sri Lanka, to further enhance language acquisition and academic success. Additionally, collaboration between teachers, schools, and families is essential for creating a supportive learning environment.

Significance of the Study

This study aims to address spelling errors among G.C.E. O/L students, providing valuable insights for students, teachers, curriculum planners, and the broader community. The findings offer practical recommendations for designing effective spelling programs and highlight the importance of readiness and structured instruction in improving spelling accuracy. By examining challenges such as phonetic errors and rule overgeneralization, the study emphasizes the need for targeted methodologies to support struggling learners. Furthermore, it serves as a resource for future researchers, providing a foundation for exploring related issues and developing new strategies to enhance English spelling proficiency in secondary education.

REFERENCES

1. Abdhul Rahuman, M.M. (2014). A study on Errors Made by Tamil Speaking Adult Students in Using Present Simple Tense in English. Proceedings 4^th international symposium SEUSL.
2. Abu-Rabia, S., & Sammour, R. (2013). Spelling errors’ analysis of regular and dyslexic bilingual Arabic-English students. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(01), 58.
3. Ahmed Benyo. (2014) English Spelling Problems among students at the university ofDongola Sudan. Asian Journal of Education and E-learning: corpus: 174691.s
4. Ali Alsaawi. (2015). Spelling Errors Made by Arab Learners of English. International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2015, Vol. 7, No. 5.
5. Al-Jarf R. (2010). Spelling Error Corpora in EFL. Sino-USA, 7(1): 73 Anthony SC (2011). http://www.susancanthony.com/pdfsamplgpages/SPSamp.pdf.
6. Asma Al-Oudat. (2017). Spelling Errors in English Writing Committed by English Students at BAU. Journal of Literature, Languages, and Linguistics www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-8435 An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.32, 2017.
7. Babkoff, A. (2005). Old rules, Spelling Reform, Loan words, and spelling on the net 18th Annual, EA Education Conference.
8. Bowen, H. (2011). Spelling it out! Accounting for spelling difficulties for Arab learners of English.
9. Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language learning, 42(4), 557591.
10. Cook, V. J. (1997). L2 users and English spelling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(6), 474-488.
11. Corder, S.P. (1967). The Significance of Learner’s Error. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist.,4(5): 162-170.
12. Caines, A. (2023). Word study: An approach to teaching spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 19(1), 45–58.
13. , & Easther. (2015). Spelling Errors: Causes, influence on students; Performance in English Language Essay Writing and Strategies for Correcting Them. Case Studies Journal volume 4, issue- 8.
14. Dulay H., & Burt M, Krashen S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 138.
15. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512Fender, M. (2008). Spelling knowledge and reading development: Insights from Arab ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(1), 19–42.
16. Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226.
17. Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743.
18. Henderson EH., Templeton S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal spelling instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. Elem. Sch. J., 86:304-316.
19. Hornby, AS. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learners ‘ Dictionary of Current English. 6th edition. Edited by Sally Wehmeier. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Routledge.
21. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman Kemmer, S. (2009). The history of English and standardization. http:// www.ruf.rice.edu/Kemmer/histengl/spelling, html.
22. Koralage, L. (2018). Use of Supplementary Reading Materials to Reduce Spelling Errors among Sri Lanka Second Language Learners: concerning grade six students of Sri Shylanthayathana Sunday School of Habarakada, Sri Lanka. IFLA WLIC 2018- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
23. Lenski, S., & Verbruggen, F. (2006). Teaching spelling to English language learners. In Writing instruction and assessment for English language learners K-8 (pp. 96–114).
24. Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge.
25. Parlindungan, F. (2018). What research has to say about spelling instruction for English language learners. International Seminar on English Language Teaching and Research.
26. Ransdell, S., & Barbier, M. L. (Eds.). (2002). New directions for research in L2 writing. Springer.
27. Rohan Abeywickrama. (2010). An Analysis of Errors in English Writing of Sinhala Speaking Undergraduates.Sabaramuwa University Journal Volume 9 Number 1; December 2010 pp 97-114 ISSN 1391-3166.
28. Saeed Al-Sobhi, B.M., Rashid, S., Ain Nadzimah Abdullah, & Ramiza Darm. (2017). Arab ESL Secondary School Students’ Spelling Errors. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies. Volume: 5 Issue: 3.
29. Salim Abu- Rabia, Rana Sammour. (2012). Spelling Errors’ Analysis of Regular and Dyslexic Bilingual Arabic—English Students. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. Vol.3, No. 1, 58-68.
30. Shaw, H. (1970). Errors in English and Ways to Correct Them. New York: A division of Harper and Row Publishers, p. 167.
31. Subhi, S.N., Mohd Yasi, M.S. (2015). Investigating Study of English Spelling Errors: A Sample of Iraqi Students in Malaysia International Journal of Education and Research. Vol. 3 No. 6 June 2015.
32. Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Multilingual Matter.