Effects of Multimedia Learning on Vocabulary Acquisition

June 25, 2010

AATK 2010 Washington University

Jason Bumyong Sung University of Hawaii at Manoa

Research Objectives

1. To investigate effects of multimedia learning on word acquisition.

2. Measure effectiveness of inputs; auditory input & enhanced text input.

3. Enhance quality of vocabulary instructions and ultimately, provide empirically proven as effective vocabulary strategy to learners.

Frameworks: Multimedia Learning

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer 2003)

• Mayer, Richard E. (1997, 2001) proposed and developed the cognitive theory of multimedia learning that consists of three important assumptions: 1)dual channels, 2)limited capacity and 3)active processing (Mayer, 2001).

• Extension of two theories, dual-coding theory (Paivio:1981,2006) and Wittrock’s gererative theory of learning (1974,1990).

Multimedia Learning con’t

First Assumption: Dual Channels

Dual Code Theory: two channels to process information.

1)verbal representations: speech or writing,

2)non-verbal representations: images (Paivio 2001)

Second Assumption: Limited Capacity

Multimedia Learning con’tThird Assumption: Active Processing

Generative Theory of Learning (Wittrock 1974, 1990) Four learning strategies• 1) recall, 2) integration, 3) organization, and 4) elaboration integration of new ideas with the learner's existing schemata,

particularly by using four types of learning strategies.

Mayer asserts • Three essential cognitive processes, 1)selecting relevant information from newly presented

materials, 2)organizing the selected information into coherent mental representations, and 3)integrating organized

information with prior knowledge (Mayer, 1997, 2001)

Research Design

52 participants from 1st semester of Beginning IA class.

Randomly assigned to three groups.

1)TP (Text&Picture) Gr.1

2)TAP (Text, Audio, & Picture) Gr. 2

3)eTAP(enhanced Text, Audio & Picture) Gr. 3

Pre-test & Posttest is given(meaning & spelling).

Background information sheet.

ANOVA & Post Hoc

Research Design

Microsoft Office Word 97 - 2003 ¹®¼

boy friend:남자친구Text

Audio

Picture

TAP group

Research Hypothesis

1. The eTAP group will outperform the other groups in the meaning recognition test and the spelling production test.

2. The TAP group will outperform the TP group only in the meaning recognition test and the spelling production test.

3. Differences in score will be greater in the spelling production test. (Salem 2006)

Data Analysis Outliers were eliminated.

(ex. Learning difficulties, proficiency level or etc…)

Out of 52 participants, 42 participants were selected.

ANOVA

Post Hoc Comparison Test: LSD & Tukey HSD

Data Analysis - score rubricsMeaning recognition test: 1 pt. for each question: total 10 pts.

Spelling production test:1)Whole Word Scoring (WWS): 1 pt. is given out if the whole

word is spelled accurately. (adopted from Barcroft, 2004)

2)CVS (Consonant & Vowel Scoring):

1pt. is given out for each accurately placed consonant & vowel.

Microsoft Office Word 97 - 2003 ¹®¼

Result – meaning recognition

All scored perfect except 3 who scored 9 out of 10.

Even those who scored zero on the spelling production

test scored all questions right.

Subjects took an extremely short time to complete the

meaning recognition test.

Result – spelling production

Gr. 1 Gr.2 Gr.31 3 4 5

2 1 8 4

3 1 10 5

4 3 0 3

5 3 6 1

6 0 2 1

7 0 2 3

8 4 2 3

9 1 1 5

10 1 5 4

11 6 2 4

12 1 5 3

13 0 6 4

Mean 1.84 4.07 3.46

CVS 54 pts.WWS 10 pts.

Results The TAP group (Gr. 2) outperformed the other two

groups.

The eTAP group (Gr. 3) outperformed the TP group only.

There was a significant difference between the TAP

group and the TP group(in WHS, not in CVS).

No significant difference was found between the TP

group and the eTAP group.

Results - WWS

(I) Group (J) Group

Mean Difference

(I-J)Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Tukey HSD

1.00 2.00 -2.23077* .83678 .030 -4.2761 -.1854

3.00 -1.61538 .83678 .145 -3.6607 .4299

2.00 1.00 2.23077* .83678 .030 .1854 4.2761

3.00 .61538 .83678 .744 -1.4299 2.6607

3.00 1.00 1.61538 .83678 .145 -.4299 3.6607

2.00 -.61538 .83678 .744 -2.6607 1.4299

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. F (2, 27) = 3.79

Post Hoc Comparison Test

Results - CVS

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:Score

(I) Treatment

(J) Treatment

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence IntervalLower Bound

Upper Bound

Tukey HSD

1.00 2.00 -9.38462 4.57216 .114 -20.5603 1.7911

3.00 -5.23077 4.57216 .494 -16.4065 5.9450

2.00 1.00 9.38462 4.57216 .114 -1.7911 20.5603

3.00 4.15385 4.57216 .639 -7.0219 15.3296

3.00 1.00 5.23077 4.57216 .494 -5.9450 16.4065

2.00 -4.15385 4.57216 .639 -15.3296 7.0219

LSD 1.00 2.00 -9.38462* 4.57216 .047 -18.6574 -.1118

3.00 -5.23077 4.57216 .260 -14.5035 4.0420

2.00 1.00 9.38462* 4.57216 .047 .1118 18.6574

3.00 4.15385 4.57216 .370 -5.1189 13.4266

3.00 1.00 5.23077 4.57216 .260 -4.0420 14.5035

2.00 -4.15385 4.57216 .370 -13.4266 5.1189

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Post Hoc Comparison Test

Results

WHS CVS

Conclusion The TAP group outperformed the other two groups. 1) Audio input facilitates vocabulary learning.

The eTAP group outperformed the TP group only.

Limited capacity (2nd assumption)

Needed more time to process all input.

TAP input was more effective in the spelling production

test Confirmation of Salem 2006.

For Future Study Increased sample size.

Long-term effect: Delayed posttest.

Effectiveness of writing as reading out loud.

ReferencesBarcroft, J. (2004). "Effects of sentence writing in second language lexical acquisition."

Second Language Research(20): 303.

Barcroft, J. (2006). "Can writing a new word detract from learning it? More negative effects of forced output during vocabulary learning." Second Language Research 22(4): 487-497

Chen, Z. (2006). The Effects of Multimedia Annotations on L2 Vocabulary Immediate Recall and Reading Comprehension: A Comparative Study of Text-Picture and Audio-Picture Annotations under Incidental and Intentional Learning Conditions. Department of Secondary Education College of Education and Department of World Language Education, University of South Florida. Doctor of Philosophy.

Mayer, R. E. (1997). "Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? ." Educational psychologists 32: 10-19. 

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2003). "Elements of a science E- Learning." Journal of Educational Computing Research 29(3): 297-313.

ReferencesLee, D.-E. (2007). "Discussion of KFL Learner's Spelling Issues and Ways for

Improvements: Focusing on Heritage Learners of Korean." Korean Linguistics 35: 335-362

Sadoski, M. and A. Paivio (2001). Imagery and Text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing Mahwah, New Jersey; London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Salem, E. B. (2001). The influence of electronic glossess on word retention and reading comprehension with Spanish language learners. Curriculum and Teaching, University of Kensas. PhD.

Wittorck, M. C. (1989). "Generative processes of comprehension " Educational Psychologist 24: 345-376.

Yeh, Y. and C. Wang (2003). "Effects of multimedia vocabulary annotations and learning styles on vocabulary learning " CALICO Journal 21(1): 131-144.

Q & A

Research Objectives

Research Objectives