Errors Analysis of Spelling Among University Students of English in Jordan: An Analytical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims at investigating the spelling mistakes made by students of English language in The World Islamic Sciences and Education University (WISE) in Jordan. The researcher adopted Cook‘s classification of errors in this study. Students mistakes were categorized into four classifications: substitution, omission, insertion, and transposition. Fifty students were participated in the study by enrolling in the "Error Analysis" course in two semesters of the academic year 2016/2017. The data for the study were derived from three exams: the first, the second, and the final exams, given to the students during the two semesters. Then the data were analyzed after completing the course in the second semester of 2016-2017. The results of the study revealed that (38%) of the errors referred to omission and (28%) to insertion. However, the study showed that (22%) of errors referred to substitution, while only (15%) of them referred to transposition. This study showed that using vowels and pronunciation incorrectly is one of the major causes of the learners' errors. Further, the interference of the first language plays a significant role in this regard. The study concludes that more efforts and concern should be given to spelling errors made by students since the learning of spelling is an integral part of language learning. The researcher suggested some recommendations and pedagogical implications to be studied in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".