The Effects of Multimedia Annotations on Incidental Vocabulary Learning of Students with Different Cognitive Styles

• Main Authors: Si-Yu Li, 李思妤
• Other Authors: Chih-Cheng Lin
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/80235219060371655624

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 英語學系 === 102 === This paper is intended to investigate the effects of multimedia annotation modes on vocabulary learning for students with different cognitive styles. It also attempts to find out whether audio input can help improve learners’ performance on a vocabulary listening test. Another focus of the study is to examine the amount of cognitive load induced by different annotation modes as well as its correlation with students’ learning results. To explore if the effectiveness of multimedia annotations varies according to learners’ styles, 90 visualizers and 84 verbalizers were recruited from a university in northern Taiwan. Fifteen target words were selected and embedded in a reading text, with each of them annotated in four annotation forms: (1) text alone (textual mode), (2) text and still pictures (pictorial mode), (3) text and audio information (audio mode), and (4) text, pictures and audio stimuli (mixed mode). Verbal and visual learners were randomly assigned to one of the four annotation types respectively. All participants finished the vocabulary pretest one week before the experiment. After reading, they took the immediate and two-week delayed posttests without prior notice, including a listening definition-supply test, a written form-recall test, and a written meaning-recognition test. A cognitive load measurement was also adopted to estimate learners’ cognitive load under different annotation treatments. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, revealing a significant interaction between cognitive style and annotation mode for immediate overall vocabulary gain and listening definition-supply test performance. Verbalizers scored higher than visualizers in the text-only and sound groups. On the other hand, visualizers acquired more words than verbalizers in the picture group. The respective comparisons within verbalizers and visualizers further showed that verbalizers performed worse with the pictorial mode than with other annotation types; whereas visualizers got the lowest scores when assigned to the textual mode. As for the delayed vocabulary learning and listening posttest results, verbalizers recalled more target words than visualizers on the whole. No difference was detected in the effects among the annotation conditions on vocabulary retention. Finally, the cognitive load of verbalizers was significantly less than that perceived by visualizers, regardless of annotation treatments. Based upon the findings, a conclusion can be drawn for the use of multimedia annotations. Since verbalizers and visualizers did not profit from a particular type of annotation to the same degree, it is important to choose the presentation modes that cater to their cognitive styles. A combined use of text, picture and sound may best support both verbal and visual learners because they are free to choose the annotations in their preferred forms to learn words.