1. Effects of Multimedia Learning on Vocabulary Acquisition June 25, 2010 AATK 2010 Washington University Jason Bumyong Sung University of Hawaii at Manoa

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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

5. Multimedia Learning con’t Third 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)

6. Research Design 52 participants from 1 st 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

7. Research Design

8. boy friend: 남자친구 Text Audio Picture TAP group

9. 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)

10. 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

11. Data Analysis - score rubrics Meaning 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.

12. 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.

13. Result – spelling production Gr. 1Gr.2Gr.3 1345 2184 31105 4303 5361 6021 7023 8423 9115 154 11624 12153 13064 Mean1.844.073.46 Gr. 1Gr.2Gr.3 1323028 264229 3115441 4171519 528819 6233817 7144718 8301224 979 10213325 11441830 1253923 13153024 Mean 19.4628.8424.69 CVS 54 pts.WWS 10 pts.

14. 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.

15. Results - WWS (I) Grou p(J) Group Mean Difference (I-J) Std. ErrorSig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Tukey HSD 1.002.00-2.23077 *.83678.030-4.2761-.1854 3.00-1.61538.83678.145-3.6607.4299 2.001.002.23077 *.83678.030.18544.2761 3.00.61538.83678.744-1.42992.6607 3.001.001.61538.83678.145-.42993.6607 2.00-.61538.83678.744-2.66071.4299 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. F (2, 27) = 3.79 Post Hoc Comparison Test

16. Results - CVS Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable:Score (I) Treat ment (J) Treatment Mean Difference (I-J)Std. ErrorSig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Tukey HSD 1.002.00-9.384624.57216.114-20.56031.7911 3.00-5.230774.57216.494-16.40655.9450 2.001.009.384624.57216.114-1.791120.5603 3.004.153854.57216.639-7.021915.3296 3.001.005.230774.57216.494-5.945016.4065 2.00-4.153854.57216.639-15.32967.0219 LSD 1.002.00-9.38462 * 4.57216.047-18.6574-.1118 3.00-5.230774.57216.260-14.50354.0420 2.001.009.38462 * 4.57216.047.111818.6574 3.004.153854.57216.370-5.118913.4266 3.001.005.230774.57216.260-4.042014.5035 2.00-4.153854.57216.370-13.42665.1189 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Post Hoc Comparison Test

17. Results WHS CVS

18. 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 (2 nd assumption)  Needed more time to process all input. TAP input was more effective in the spelling production test  Confirmation of Salem 2006.

19. For Future Study  Increased sample size.  Long-term effect: Delayed posttest.  Effectiveness of writing as reading out loud.

20. References Barcroft, 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.

21. References Lee, 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.

22. Q & A

23. Research Objectives