Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 7, pp 1501–1525 | Cite as

Effects of spell checkers on English as a second language students’ incidental spelling learning: a cognitive load perspective

  • Po-Han Lin
  • Tzu-Chien Liu
  • Fred Paas
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Computer-based spell checkers help to correct misspells instantly. Almost all the word processing devices are now equipped with a spell-check function that either automatically corrects errors or provides a list of intended words. However, it is not clear on how the reliance on this convenient technological solution affects spelling learning. According to cognitive load theory convenience might be harmful for learning because it reduces the amount of effort invested in the learning task. In this study, effects of spelling aids on detecting and correcting misspelled words were examined by comparing English as a second language students’ performances on detecting and correcting the misspelled word across four conditions: control, red underline, spell-check (drop-down list), and dictionary. Learning transferability and durability were also examined. Results indicated that all spelling aids induced error-detection learning even when the errors were presented in a different context (transferability) or in a delayed posttest (durability). For error-correction learning, results showed that both the spell-checker (drop-down list) and the dictionary helped the students to learn the spelling incidentally. On the delayed posttest, error-correction performance in these two aided conditions was significantly higher than the performance in the control group. In conclusion, effort spent on searching for the correct words relates to better incidental spelling learning. Convenience and effort should be considered as factors influencing incidental spelling learning in the design of computer-based spell checkers.

Keywords

Cognitive load theory Spell-check function Spelling ability Word-processing Dictionary Digital writing devices 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonin, P., Méot, A., Millotte, S., & Barry, C. (2013). Individual differences in adult handwritten spelling-to-dictation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burt, J. S. (2006). Spelling in adults: The combined influences of language skills and reading experience. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 35, 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer, F. W., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1985). Spelling proficiency and sensitivity to word structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grejda, G. F., & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Effects of word processing on sixth grader’s holistic writing and revision. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gupta, R. (1998). Can spelling checkers help the novice writer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36, 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). Wide range achievement test (revised). Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Haynes, J. B. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behaviors, 26, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003a). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003b). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive-load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pedler, J. (2001). Computer spellcheckers and dyslexics—A performance study. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plumb, C., Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Error correction in text: Testing the processing-deficit and knowledge-deficit hypotheses. Reading and Writing, 6(4), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saigh, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Difficulties with vocabulary word from: The case of Arabic ESL learners. System, 40, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shafto, M. A. (2015). Proofreading in young and older adults: The effect of error category and comprehension difficulty. Internal Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 14445–14460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweller, J., van Merriërboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Education Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Merriënboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Learning and InstructionNational Central UniversityJhongliTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Educational Psychology and CounselingNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, Education and Child StudiesErasmus University Rotterdam, NetherlandsRotterdamNetherlands
  4. 4.Early Start Research InstituteUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options