Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 1965–1985 | Cite as

Progressive treatment and self-assessment: effects on students’ automatisation of grammatical spelling and self-efficacy beliefs

  • Marie Van Reybroeck
  • Jessica Penneman
  • Charline Vidick
  • Benoît Galand
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The production of grammatical markers takes a long time to master. Even when students know the rules, they do not systematically apply them. However, few studies have demonstrated the efficacy of interventions to improve this competence, and no study has addressed the issue at the cognitive and motivational levels jointly. Our study demonstrates the effect of combining progressive treatment, based on cognitive cost and self-assessment, on grammatical spelling and on self-efficacy beliefs. Over 8 weekly 50-minute lessons, four groups of 18, 20, 18 and 21 ninth graders received, respectively, progressive treatment alone, coupled with self-assessment, coupled with feedback, or coupled with self-assessment and feedback. These intervention groups were compared with a control group of 36 students receiving standard spelling instruction. The interventions focussed on past participle inflections, which are particularly difficult to learn for French-speaking students. The results indicated that (a) students who received progressive treatment made more progress than the control group students in spelling past participle inflections, presenting a transfer and a first degree of automatisation of the rules. The results also indicated that (b) students who participated in progressive treatment with self-assessment improved even more on the spelling tests, including free text production, and in their self-efficacy beliefs, demonstrating a deeper automatisation of the grammatical rules combined with an increase in perceived efficacy. This research shows that learning benefits from instructional practices that provide both cognitive cost and motivational support.

Keywords

Grammatical spelling Cognitive cost Progressive treatment Self-efficacy beliefs Self-assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the students, teachers and principals for their support and participation and R. A. Alves for comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Alamargot, D., Flouret, L., Larocque, D., Caporossi, G., Pontart, V., Paduraru, C., et al. (2015). Successful written subject-verb agreement: An online analysis of the procedure used by students in Grades 3, 5 and 12. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allal, L. (1999). Impliquer l’apprenant dans le processus d’évaluation: Promesses et pièges de l’autoévaluation. [Involve the learner in the assessment process: Promises and traps of self-assessment]. In C. Depover & B. Noël (Eds.), L’évaluation des compétences et des processus cognitifs (pp. 35–56). Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT—A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrade, H. L., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (2007). Auto-efficacité. Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle. [Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs]. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  7. Baneath, B., Boutard, C., & Alberti, C. (2006). Chronosdictées. Outil d’évaluation des performances orthographiques (avec et sans contrainte temporelle). [Chronosdictées. Assessment of spelling performances with and without time pressure]. Isbergues: Ortho Edition.Google Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2010). Progress feedback effects on students’ writing mastery goal, self-efficacy beliefs, and performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fayol, M., & Got, C. (1991). Automatisme et contrôle dans la production écrite. [Automatisation and control in written production]. L’année psychologique, 91, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fayol, M., Hupet, M., & Largy, P. (1999). The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written french: From novices to experts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galand, B., & Philippot, P. (2002). Style motivationnel des élèves du secondaire: Developpement d’un instrument de mesure et relations avec d’autres variables pédagogiques. [Motivational profiles of secondary school students: Development of a measuring instrument and relationship with other educational variables]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 34, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Hupet, M., Fayol, M., & Schelstraete, M.-A. (1998). Effects of semantic variables on the subject-verb agreement processes in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Khomsi, A., Nanty, I., Pasquet, F., & Parbeau-Guéno, A. (2007). ECL-Collège. Evaluation des compétences linguistiques au collège. [Assessment of linguistic competences at secondary school]. Paris: Les Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.Google Scholar
  19. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nadeau, M. (1995). Propositions pour améliorer le transfert des connaissances en orthographe grammaticale. [Suggestions to improve grammatical spelling knowledge transfer]. Québec français, 99, 35–38.Google Scholar
  22. Negro, I., Bonnotte, I., & Lété, B. (2014). Statistical learning of past participle inflections in French. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1255–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Negro, I., & Chanquoy, L. (2000). Subject-verb agreement with present and imperfect tenses: A developmental study from 2nd to 7th grade. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Negro, I., & Chanquoy, L. (2005). Explicit and implicit training of subject-verb agreement processing in 3rd and 5th grades. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning morphological and phonological spelling rules: An intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Implications for teachers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol 5. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. (pp. 339–367). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Pajares, F., & Cheong, Y. F. (2003). Achievement goal orientations in writing: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 104–120.Google Scholar
  29. Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1998). Progressive Matrices Standard (PM38). Edition 1998. Paris: Editions et Applications Psychologiques.Google Scholar
  32. Sandra, D., Frisson, S., & Daems, F. (1999). Why simple verb forms can be so difficult to spell: The influence of homophone frequency and distance in Dutch. Brain and Language, 68, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class reciprocal teaching: A moderator-mediator analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’ reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1989). Learning goals and children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Totereau, C., Fayol, M., & Barrouillet, P. (1998). Overgeneralizations of number inflections in the learning of written french: the case of noun and verb. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Reybroeck, M., & Hupet, M. (2009). Effects of various processing demands on the acquisition of number agreement in written French. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Reybroeck, M., Schelstraete, M. A., Hupet, M., & Szmalec, A. (2014). Switching between noun and verb agreement rules comes at a cost: Cross-sectional and interventional studies in a developmental sample. Psychology of Language and Communication, 18, 226–250.Google Scholar
  45. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychological Sciences Research InstituteUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvain-La-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options