Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 27 April 2017

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 27 April 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

Notes

  1. In this study, only the extraneous and germane cognitive load were measured. Intrinsic cognitive load, which refers to the basic memory requirements for holding the basic information (task demand, procedure, apparatus usages, material, etc.), is assumed to be constant across conditions and thus, it was not measured in this study.

  2. Although the red-underline condition does not provide an error-correction function, it is still considered as a spelling-aided tool because of its signaling function. The signaling reduces users’ effort in searching for the misspelled words and presumably allows the users to search for the correct spelling in their memory.

References

  • Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonin, P., Méot, A., Millotte, S., & Barry, C. (2013). Individual differences in adult handwritten spelling-to-dictation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, J. S. (2006). Spelling in adults: The combined influences of language skills and reading experience. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 35, 447–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. W., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1985). Spelling proficiency and sensitivity to word structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R. (1998). Can spelling checkers help the novice writer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36, 196–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). Wide range achievement test (revised). Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25, 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 135–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003a). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedler, J. (2001). Computer spellcheckers and dyslexics—A performance study. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saigh, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Difficulties with vocabulary word from: The case of Arabic ESL learners. System, 40, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriërboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Education Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction, National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan

    Po-Han Lin

  2. Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University, 162, HePing East Road, Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan

    Tzu-Chien Liu

  3. Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Fred Paas

  4. Early Start Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Fred Paas

Authors
  1. Po-Han Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tzu-Chien Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fred Paas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tzu-Chien Liu.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9739-z.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, PH., Liu, TC. & Paas, F. Effects of spell checkers on English as a second language students’ incidental spelling learning: a cognitive load perspective. Read Writ 30, 1501–1525 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9734-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9734-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation