Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:41:23.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of individual factors in L2 vocabulary learning with cognitive-linguistics-based static and dynamic visual aids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2021

Takeshi Sato Open the ORCID record for Takeshi Sato [Opens in a new window] ,
Yuda Lai Open the ORCID record for Yuda Lai [Opens in a new window]  and
Tyler Burden Open the ORCID record for Tyler Burden [Opens in a new window]
Takeshi Sato
Affiliation:
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Japan ([email protected])
Yuda Lai
Affiliation:
Providence University, Taiwan ([email protected])
Tyler Burden
Affiliation:
Meisei University, Japan ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study aims to verify the impact of dynamic aids on learning L2 prepositions in relation to individual learner variables. Situated within the cognitive linguistics (CL) framework and differing from previous research, the present study hypothesizes that dynamic (animated) aids are not equally effective for all learners; rather, their effectiveness differs according to learners’ first languages (L1s) (Chinese or Japanese) and information-processing styles (verbalizers or imagers). To verify this hypothesis, we utilized learning materials comprised of static and dynamic images for three English spatial prepositions (above, on, over). After conducting a Style of Processing questionnaire, we administered three cloze tests (pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest) of target words to Taiwanese and Japanese participants (N = 109), whose L1s differed in terms of their linguistic proximity to English. Although no significant differences were found between the treatment groups in tests for all participants, the results were differentiated by individual factors. In results of a two-way ANOVA, Taiwanese participants showed significantly greater improvement from the pretest to posttest than Japanese participants when the participants used dynamic images, whereas the Japanese group made more learning gains from the posttest to the delayed posttest test. Moreover, imagers obtained more benefits from the visual aids, whether static or dynamic, than verbalizers. Our findings indicate that CL-based visual aids are beneficial and that individual factors, especially learners’ L1, may produce different learning effects, especially in multimedia environments.

Keywords

image schemastaticdynamicanimationindividual factorsprepositionmultimedia learningcognitive linguistics
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 201 - 217
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Seghayer, K. (2001) The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1): 202–232.Google Scholar
Aldera, A. S. & Mohsen, M. A. (2013) Annotations in captioned animation: Effects on vocabulary learning and listening skills. Computers & Education, 68: 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alwi, A. & McKay, E. (2015) Experiencing museum learning through multimedia instructions. Jurnal Teknologi, 77(29): 103–109. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F. (2000) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied linguistics, 21(4): 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F. (2013) Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching, 46(2): 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444811000450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J. & Stengers, H. (2006) Motivating multiword units: Rationale, mnemonic benefits, and cognitive style variables. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6(1): 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.6.11boe CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008) How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199161.1.1 Google Scholar
Boers, F., Lindstromberg, S., Littlemore, J., Stengers, H. & Eyckmans, J. (2008). Variables in the mnemoniceffectiveness of pictorial elucidation. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 189–216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F. & Littlemore, J. (2000) Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3): 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1503_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., Píriz, A. M. P., Stengers, H. & Eyckmans, J. (2009) Does pictorial elucidation foster recollection of idioms? Language Teaching Research, 13(4): 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., Warren, P., Grimshaw, G. & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2017) On the benefits of multimodal annotations for vocabulary uptake from reading. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7): 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1356335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, P. (1998) Using multimedia: A descriptive investigation of incidental language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(2): 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.11.2.179.5684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. (2009) A cognitive linguistic approach to classroom English vocabulary instruction for EFL learners in mainland China. English Language Teaching, 2(1): 95–100. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n1p95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J. & Heckler, S. E. (1985) Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2): 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/208501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, S. D., Gholson, B. & Driscoll, D. M. (2002) Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2): 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R. B. (1994) Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4): 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L. & Oxford, R. L. (2003) A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31(3): 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00045-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2): 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, Y. (2011) Cognitive linguistics–inspired empirical study of Chinese EFL teaching. Creative Education, 2(4): 354–362. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2011.24050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghinea, G. & Chen, S. Y. (2008) Measuring quality of perception in distributed multimedia: Verbalizers vs. imagers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4): 1317–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffler, T. N. & Leutner, D. (2007) Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6): 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffler, T. N. & Leutner, D. (2011) The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations – Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1): 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y.-H. & Chuang, T.-Y. (2016) Technology-assisted sheltered instruction: Instructional streaming video in an EFL multi-purpose computer course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3): 618–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.1000933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987) Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, Y., Sato, T. & Burden, T. (2021) Impact of instruction explicitness, cognitive learning style, and modality on the effectiveness of cognitive linguistics-based visual aids for teaching prepositions in Taiwanese EFL classrooms. English Teaching & Learning, 45: 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00058-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, Y. (2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para . Language Awareness, 18(1): 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802147345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S. (2017) Raising EFL learners’ awareness of L2 lexical errors and correct usage: A dual coding approach. English Teaching, 72(2): 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H. & Dwyer, F. M. (2010) The effect of static and animated visualization: A perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2): 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9133-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2004) Item-based and cognitive-style-based variation in students’ abilities to use metaphoric extension strategies. Ibérica, 7: 5–31.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomicka, L. L. (1998) “To gloss or not to gloss”: An investigation of reading comprehension online. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2): 41–50.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. K. (2003) Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2): 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00018-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Z. & Sun, J. (2017) Presenting English polysemous phrasal verbs with two metaphor-based cognitive methods to Chinese EFL learners. System, 69: 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1997) Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1992) The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4): 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002) Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14: 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013184611077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohsen, M. A. & Balakumar, M. (2011) A review of multimedia glosses and their effects on L2 vocabulary acquisition in CALL literature. ReCALL, 23(2): 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095834401100005x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niknejad, S. & Rahbar, B. (2015) Enhancing EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability through multimedia-based visualization. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(6): 119–127.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1971) Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Riding, R. & Rayner, S. (1998) Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton Publishers.Google Scholar
Roche, J. & Scheller, J. (2008) Grammar animations and cognition. In Zhang, F. & Barber, B. (eds.), Handbook of research on computer-enhanced language acquisition and learning. Hershey: Information Science Reference, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-895-6.ch012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusli, M., Ardhana, I. W., Degeng, I. N. S. & Kamdi, W. (2014) The effect of presentation strategy on multimedia learning-animation vs static visualization-and learning style to learning result. Academic Research International, 5(1): 216–226.Google Scholar
Sato, T. (2016a) Applicability of technology-enhanced visual glosses for explicit L2 vocabulary learning: The enhancement of metaphoric competence through the learning of English polysemous words. Ampersand, 3: 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2016.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T. (2016b) Could a multimodal dictionary serve as a learning tool? An examination of the impact of technologically enhanced visual glosses on L2 text comprehension. The EUROCALL Review, 24(2): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2016.5236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T. & Burden, T. (2020) The impact of information processing styles in mobile-assisted language learning: Are multimedia materials effective for every learner? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 17(Suppl. 1): 154–167.Google Scholar
Sato, T., Lai, Y. & Burden, T. (2014) Who will be effective users of CALL?: An examination of individual variants in the use of technology-enhanced visual glosses. In Colpaert, J., Aerts, A. & Oberhofer, M. (eds.), 2014 CALL Conference: Research challenges in CALL: Proceedings. Antwerp: University of Antwerp, 299–303.Google Scholar
Sato, T. & Suzuki, A. (2010) Do multimedia-oriented visual glosses really facilitate EFL vocabulary learning?: A comparison of planar images with three-dimensional images. Asian EFL Journal, 12(4): 160–172.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory to second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–115.Google Scholar
Tanaka, S. (1990) Ninchi imiron [Cognitive semantics]. Tokyo: San’yusha.Google Scholar
Tanaka, S., Takeda, S. & Kawade, S. (eds.) (2003) E-gate English-Japanese dictionary. Tokyo: Benesse Corporation.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W. (2003) Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3): 547–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B. (2006) Lexical network structures and L2 vocabulary acquisition: The role of L1 lexical/conceptual knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(4): 741–747. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, L. H. & Looi, C. K. (2010).Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and socialmeaning-making: Two case studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, M. H. I., Zhao, H. & MacWhinney, B. (2018) A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68(2): 438–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, H.-Y. (2016) The effects of attention cueing on visualizers’ multimedia learning. Educational Technology and Society, 19(1): 249–262.Google Scholar
Yasuda, S. (2010) Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2): 250–273. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.219945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshii, M. (2006) L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3): 85–101.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sato et al. supplementary material

Sato et al. supplementary material 1

Download Sato et al. supplementary material(File)
File 490 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Sato et al. supplementary material

Sato et al. supplementary material 2

Download Sato et al. supplementary material(File)
File 921.9 KB