Transcript Document

Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST)
Department of Foreign Languages
The Effect of Online Textual, Pictorial, and Textual
Pictorial Glosses on the Incidental Vocabulary
Learning of Iranian Elementary EFL Learners
Advisors
Dr. Seyyed Akbar Mirhassani
Dr. Seyyed Mahmoud Mirtabatabai
Reader
Esmeel Abdollahzadeh
By:
Seyed Abdollah Shahrokni
September 2008
Presentation Layout
Acknowledgement
Overview
Research Questions
Research Hypotheses
Research Design
Gloss Taxonomy
Treatment Materials
Participants
Instruments
Data Analysis and Results
Conclusion
Implication and Applications
Suggestions for Further Research
Overview
Abstract
Statement of the Problem
Significance of the Study
Research Questions
The research mainly addressed the question of:
 Does a particular annotation type affect the incidental
vocabulary learning when learners read a text for
comprehension purposes?
which was further broken down to 3 subordinate questions:
1.
Is there any significant difference in the incidental vocabulary
learning of the textual gloss group and that of the pictorial gloss
group?
2.
Is there any significant difference in the incidental vocabulary
learning of the textual gloss group and that of the textual
pictorial gloss group?
3.
Is there any significant difference in the incidental vocabulary
learning of the pictorial gloss group and that of the textual
pictorial gloss group?
Research Hypotheses
Based on the research questions, the following null-hypotheses
surface:
1. There is no significant difference in the performance of the
textual gloss group and that of the pictorial gloss group on the
incidental learning of the target words in the study.
2. There is no significant difference in the performance of the
textual gloss group and that of the textual pictorial gloss
group on the incidental learning of the target words in the
study.
3. There is no significant difference in the performance of the
pictorial gloss group and that of the textual pictorial gloss
group on the incidental learning of the target words in the
study.
Research Design
Gloss
__________________________________
Textual
n= 30
Pictorial
n=30
Textual Pictorial
n=30
___________________________________
Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Participants
Participants (n=90) were selected from140
volunteers based on their:
1. Performance on the proficiency test (scores
between 1 SD below and above the mean)
2. Knowledge of the target words in the study
(Total lack of familiarity)
Gloss Taxonomy (Roby, 1998)
Gloss Authorship
Learners
Professionals
Instructors
Materials developers
Gloss Presentation
Priming
Prompting
Gloss Functions
Procedural
Metacognitive
Highlighting
Clarifying
Declarative
Encyclopedic
Linguistic
Lexical
Signification
Value
Syntactical
Gloss Focus
Textual
Extratextual
Gloss Language
L1
L2
L3
Gloss Form
Verbal
Visual
Image
Icon
Video
With sound
Without sound
Audio (Only)
Treatment Materials
Textual Group
Pictorial Group
Textual Pictorial Group
Instruments
Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht
and Wesche, 1997)
Word Recognition Test (Kost et al.,
1997; Yoshii et al., 2002)
Picture Recognition Test (Kost et al.,
1997; Yoshii et al., 2002)
Vocabulary Knowledge Scale
Evaluation Criteria
Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
English Language Proficiency Test
Pre-test
Treatment
Post-tests
Data Analysis and Results
VKS: F(2, 87) = 192.67, p < .05  *significant difference
Combination group > Textual and Pictorial groups (M = 30.30, SD = 6.58)
WRT: F(2, 87) = 91.77, p < .05  *significant difference
Combination > Textual and Pictorial groups (M =24.17, SD = 1.11)
Pictorial group > Textual group (M = 20.37, SD = 2.37 )
PRT: F(2, 87) = 335.99, p < .05  *significant difference
Combination > Textual and Pictorial groups (M = 24.73, SD = .52)
Pictorial group > Textual group (M = 23.53, SD = 2.06)
Conclusion
Findings were in line with those of Kost et al.’s (1999),
Plass et al.’s, (1998), Yoshii et al.’s (2002), and Yeh et
al.’s ( 2003)
Combination of text and still image resulted in
significantly better incidental vocabulary learning
Electronic dictionaries and software that provides textual,
contextual, and/or multimedia annotations” are part of
“main technologies” which support specific components
of reading, especially incidental vocabulary learning
(Chun, 2006, p.1)
Multimodality in computer assisted language learning
(CALL) strongly enhances learning (Guichon and
McLornan, 2008)
Implications and Applications
Reading for comprehension results in incidental
vocabulary learning (Knight, 1994; Krashen, 1993)
Information coded both verbally and visually is more
effective for learning than information coded singularly
(Paivio’s (1971, 1990)
Utilizing computers, multimedia and IT has proven to be
influential in language teaching in general and incidental
vocabulary learning in particular.
There is a need for language teachers to be capable of
creating appropriate CALL materials.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study did not differentiate between the learning
styles of participants.
The incidental vocabulary learning of learners might
differ across language proficiency levels.
This study investigated the immediate incidental
vocabulary gains of participants… another study should
examine the retention of students after a one/two-week
period.
A similar study can be carried out to shed light on the
possible differences between CALL and non-CALL
instructions when the three annotation types used in this
study are the basis of comparison.
This study controlled for the gender variable.
Thank You
Inter-rater Reliability