Cognitive activation established itself as an important quality characteristic in regard to effective teaching since TIMS-Video study in 2001. TIMSS pointed out three significant quality characteristics: classroom management, student orientation and cognitive activation (cf. Klieme et al. 2001). Especially in science lessons a higher level of cognitive activation turned out as an important criterion for challenging and performance-enhancing lessons (cf. Kunter, Voss 2011).

Current studies about the effects of cognitive activation differ on the perception of the concept ‘cognitive activation’ (eg. Kunter et al. 2013): Which tasks are cognitively activating? How can a highly cognitively activating lesson be characterized? A sufficiently substantiated selection of significant components of cognitively activating lessons and exercise formats is still to be made. This leads to the following research question:

What’s a valid description of the educational quality characteristic ‘cognitive activation‘?

Cognitive activation is seen as a quality characteristic for lessons which needs to be transformed and translated into different domains of teaching due to the possible subject-specific differences (cf. Bauer 2011). Hence, a cognitively activating task in a natural-science lesson can differ from such a task in language lesson. Previous studies about cognitive activation are found almost exclusively in natural science and mathematics. In the framework of this study, language lessons with emphasis on spelling are chosen to get a closer look at cognitive activation in non-natural science related lessons. The question above can be extended accordingly:

What’s a valid description of the educational characteristic ‘cognitive activation‘ and how can it be transformed into spelling lessons?

To answer this question, the theoretical part of this study presents an analytical framework for identification of the cognitive activation potential of spelling tasks. This framework – following Pracht and Löffler (2012) – has been modified and supplemented according to general didactical quality characteristics of cognitive challenging tasks (cf. for example Metz et al. 2009).

This enables us to describe the cognitive activation potential of spelling tasks by using the analytical framework developed in this study. It allows teachers to review the quality of their tasks and thus gaining better estimates of the activation potential of their lessons. Furthermore a cognitively activating course schedule was substantiated since the correct implementation of cognitively activating tasks into spelling lessons is of great importance besides their raw cognitive potential (cf. Stein, Grover, Henningsen 1996). The authors show that a potentially activating task doesn’t necessarily lead to cognitively activated students in the course of the lessons. Therewith the research question can be extended as follows:

How can cognitive activation as an educational characteristic be transformed into spelling lessons and described in reference to specific task features as well as regarding to the implementation of tasks into lessons?

In this study cognitively activating spelling lessons aim at establishing spelling consciousness. This includes knowledge of spelling rules and strategies as well as their correct implementation while writing (e.g. Nickel 2006, p. 364). These lessons aim at developing a deep understanding of the German spelling system. Pupils should think about written forms and establish an explicit knowledge which can be verbalized in a highly metacognitive way.

In addition to the theoretical model of cognitive activation in spelling lessons, the research interest is in improving the effectiveness of this sort of teaching. Thus, there is a further research question:

How effective is highly cognitively activating teaching in spelling lessons?

This study supplies empirical approaches to the effectiveness of the developed teaching format. Task formats and teaching in lessons are determined through the theoretical considerations of cognitive activation. Hence, two lesson concepts were formed: One with a high and another with a low cognitive activation level.

Bauer, K. (2011): „Modelle der Unterrichtsqualität“. In: Bauer, K. / Logemann, N. (Eds.): Unterrichtsqualität und fachdidaktische Forschung. Modelle und Instrumente zur Messung fachspezifischer Lernbedingungen und Kompetenzen. Münster u.a. : Waxmann, pp. 51–74. Einsiedler, Wolfgang; Hardy, Ilonca (2010): Kognitive Strukturierung im Unterricht: Einführung und Begriffsklärung. In: Unterrichtswissenschaft 38 (3), pp. 194–209. Klieme, E. ; Schümer, G. ; Knoll, S. (2001): „Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: "Aufgabenkultur" und Unterrichtsgestaltung“. In: BMBF (Eds.): TIMSS - Impulse für Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente. Bonn: BMBF, pp.43–57. Kunter, Mareike; Voss, Thamar (2011): Das Modell der Unterrichtsqualität in COACTIV: Eine multikriteriale Analyse. In: Mareike Kunter, Jürgen Baumert, Werner Blum, Uta Klusmann, Stefan Krauss und Michael Neubrand (Hg.): Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann, S. 85–113. Kunter, Mareike; Baumert, Jürgen; Blum, Werner; Klusmann, Uta; Krauss, Stefan; Neubrand, Michael (Ed.) (2013): Cognitive activation in the mathematic classroom and professional competence of teachers. Springer-Verlag. Mayring, Philipp (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 11. Auflage. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag. Metz, Kerstin; Maier, Uwe; Kleinknecht, Marc (2009): Kognitiver Anspruch von Aufgaben im Deutschunterricht. In: Ide 33 (3), pp. 74–87. Nickel, Sven (2006): Orthographieerwerb und die Entwicklung von Sprachbewusstheit. Zu Genese und Funktion von orthographischen Bewusstseinsprozessen im frühen Rechtschreiberwerb in unterschiedlichen Lernkontexten. Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Pracht, Henrike; Löffler, Cordula (2012): Analyse des kognitiven Aktivierungspotenzials von Aufgaben zum Orthographieerwerb. In: Anja Ballis und Ann Peyer (Eds.): Lernmedien und Lernaufgaben im Deutschunterricht. Konzeptionen und Analysen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt (Beiträge zur historischen und systematischen Schulbuchforschung), pp. 49–68. Stein, Mary Kay; Grover, Barbara W.; Henningsen, Marjorie (1996): Building Student Capacity for Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning: An Analysis of Mathematical Tasks Used in Reform Classrooms. In: American Educational Research Journal 33 (2), pp. 455–488.