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’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)
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
TAP group
Picture
Audio
Text boy friend: 남자친구
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 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.
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
WWS 10 pts.
Gr. 1
Gr.2
CVS 54 pts.
Gr. 1
Gr.3
Gr.2
Gr.3
1
3
4
5
1
32
30
28
2
1
8
4
2
6
42
29
3
1
10
5
3
11
54
41
4
3
0
3
4
17
15
19
5
3
6
1
5
28
8
19
6
0
2
1
6
23
38
17
7
0
2
3
7
14
47
18
8
4
2
3
8
30
12
24
9
1
1
5
9
7
9
24
10
1
5
4
10
21
33
25
11
6
2
4
11
44
18
30
12
1
5
3
12
5
39
23
13
0
6
4
13
15
30
24
Mean
1.84
4.07
3.46
Mean 19.46 28.84 24.69
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
Post Hoc Comparison Test
(I)
Grou
(J) Group
p
1.00 2.00
Tukey
HSD
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-4.2761
-.1854
Mean
Difference Std.
(I-J)
Error
-2.23077* .83678
Sig.
.030
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
Results - CVS
Post Hoc Comparison Test
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable:Score
(I)
Mean
Treat (J)
Difference
Std. Error
ment Treatment
(I-J)
1.00 2.00
-9.38462
4.57216
Tukey
3.00
-5.23077
4.57216
HSD
2.00 1.00
9.38462
4.57216
3.00
4.15385
4.57216
3.00 1.00
5.23077
4.57216
2.00
-4.15385
4.57216
1.00 2.00
-9.38462*
4.57216
LSD
3.00
-5.23077
4.57216
2.00 1.00
9.38462*
4.57216
3.00
4.15385
4.57216
3.00 1.00
5.23077
4.57216
2.00
-4.15385
4.57216
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Sig.
.114
.494
.114
.639
.494
.639
.047
.260
.047
.370
.260
.370
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-20.5603
1.7911
-16.4065
5.9450
-1.7911
20.5603
-7.0219
15.3296
-5.9450
16.4065
-15.3296
7.0219
-18.6574
-.1118
-14.5035
4.0420
.1118
18.6574
-5.1189
13.4266
-4.0420
14.5035
-13.4266
5.1189
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.
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.
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: 335362
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