computer-assisted chinese character learning: an experimental study computer-assisted chinese...

Computer-Assisted Chinese Computer-Assisted Chinese Character Learning: An Character Learning: An

Experimental Study Experimental Study

1

Presentation at the Sino-US Forum

GXNU, Guilin

June 3, 2010

Zhengbin Lu, Ed. D.

Spelman College

Rationale for the StudyRationale for the Study

The rapid proliferation of Chinese language and culture across the world

Challenges in Learning Chinese “exceptionally difficult for native English

speakers” (The Foreign Service Institute of the Department of State)

Different writing systems: Alphabetic vs. Logographic. E.g., Chinese character vs. 汉字（ hànzì)

Tonal language: 4 tones

2

Characteristics of Chinese Characteristics of Chinese ScriptScript

AAS/SEC 2009

Rationale for the StudyRationale for the Study

The conventional way of learning Chinese characters• Following demonstrations• Rote memorization through repeated copying

Promises bring about by computer and computer technology• Computer-Based Instruction (CBI) & CALL

Flexibility--any time, any where, any place Capability—multimedia and hypermediaModality—static, animationHandwriting is no longer a must for literacy in Chinese

Lack of experimental studies in CFL.

4

Theoretical FrameworksTheoretical Frameworks

Information Processing and Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia LearningInput, Interaction, and Output

(Interaction) Theory

5

Information Processing and Cognitive Information Processing and Cognitive Load TheoryLoad Theory

Information processing theory is mainly about what is happening inside a subject’s head on the basis of the subject’s external behaviors.

Information is processed in a sequence of steps, namely, the external stimuli flow into the very short-term memory, the short-term memory, and long-term memory.

The cognitive load theory is concerned with the manner in which cognitive resources are focused and used during learning and problem solving.

6

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia LearningCognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

Mayer (1994) developed the cognitive theory of multimedia learning to provide design principles for multimedia instructional materials.

Presenting both words (such as spoken text or printed text) and pictures (such as illustrations, photos, animation, or video) (Mayer, 2005).

Fundamental tenet of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning.

7

Input, Interaction, and Output Theory (Model)Input, Interaction, and Output Theory (Model)

Interaction is an important factor in language acquisition since it can promote negotiation of meaning (Long, 1996).

The notion of interaction originally was based on negotiation of meaning between human beings, but it’s now been extended to person-computer interactions during a task completion by a single user (Chapelle, 2003).

Only the input that is noticed can become beneficial, and therefore, the design of instructional material should contain features that enhance input through modifications such as change of the input mode (Chapelle, 2003).

8

Purpose of the StudyPurpose of the Study

To investigate the effects of animation and practice strategies on Chinese character learning in a digital setting.

Effects of two levels of recognition practice strategy and two levels of writing practice strategy combined with three types of stroke illustration modalities were examined.

9

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

1. How does the writing practice strategy (writing practice vs. no writing practice) affect learners’ achievement in the immediate and delayed Chinese character recognition tests?

2. How does the Chinese character recognition practice strategy (recognition practice vs. no recognition practice) affect learners’ achievement in the immediate and delayed Chinese character recognition tests?

10


3. Does Chinese character illustration modality make a difference in students’ achievement in the recognition tests?

4. How do writing practice strategy and the Chinese character illustration modality interactively affect learners’ achievement in the immediate and delayed Chinese character recognition tests?

11


5. How do recognition practice strategy and the Chinese character illustration modality interactively affect learners’ achievement in the immediate and delayed Chinese character recognition tests?

6. How do writing practice strategy and recognition practice interactively affect learners’ achievement in the immediate and delayed Chinese character recognition tests?

12

Significance of the StudySignificance of the Study

Practical significance. Valuable information for instructional designers, developers, and instructors

Fill in the gap

13

Literature ReviewLiterature Review

Functions of Practice in LearningPractice has long been accepted as an effective

learning strategy (Rieber, Boyce, & Assad, 1999).Mixed findings (Rieber, Boyce, and Assad (1990;

Rieber and Hannafin, 1988).Doing does not help students learn more deeply

than by viewing (Stull & Mayer, 2007)Practice helps Chinese character learning

(McGinns, 1995; Ke, 1998).

14


Word Recognition and RecallWord recognition and recall in alphabetic

languages• The classical views of word recognition involve

interaction of phonological and visual processing.• Words are often recognized directly and

holistically. • The alphabetic-phonetic intervention of the

alphabetic languages such as English often provides an intervening process of letter interpretation which can be an aid for the reader.

15


Word Recognition and Recall Process in CFL Environment• The above mentioned theory may not apply for

two reasons: lack of phonological representation, and 2) learners have no or minimal spoken fluency.• Visual processing helps Chinese character

recognition (Yik, 1978; Hayes, 1988; Ke, 1998)• Chinese character complexity does not affect

recognition (Hayes, 1987).

16

Effects of Animation on LearningEffects of Animation on Learning

Animation in visual displays is used for three primary instructional purposes (Rieber, 1990a):◦As a device for gaining attention and maintaining

motivation◦As a means to present information in direct

teaching◦As a practice strategy

Advantages over static visuals. Two additional attributes: motion and trajectory (Rieber, 1991)

17

Effects of Animation on LearningEffects of Animation on Learning

The effects of animation on learning in CBI: mixed findings (Rieber, 1990b; Lin, Dwyer, & Swain, 2006)

Animation and intrinsic motivation (Rieber, 1991; Kim, Yoon, Whang, Tversky, & Morrison, 2007).

18

Research DesignResearch Design

2 x 2 x 3 mixed model factorial design Independent variables• Writing practice strategy (Between-subjects

factor)• Recognition practice strategy (Between-subjects

factor)• Illustration modality (Within-subjects factor)

Dependent variables• The immediate Chinese character recognition test• The delayed Chinese character recognition test

19

Population and SamplePopulation and Sample

Population ◦ Undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory

instructional technology course in spring 2008 in a major Midwestern university

◦ 6 sections, 200 students in each sectionSample

◦ 150 participated, 133& 136 included in data analyses respectively;

◦ 83 (55.3%) female, 60 (40%) male, 7 (4.7%) did not reveal gender;

◦ 111 (74%) White, 17 Latino (11.3), 6 Black (4%), 9 Asian American (6%);

◦ Mean age 19.9 (SD = 2.34)

20

Population and SamplePopulation and Sample

21

MaterialsMaterials

Chinese charactersComputer-based Chinese character

instruction program—the Fast Chinese Character• Macromedia Flash 8• Adobe Photoshop 7.0• ActionScript 2.0

Chinese character writing practice sheet• MS Word 2007

22

InstrumentsInstruments

Demographic SurveyThe immediate Chinese character recognition

testThe delayed Chinese character recognition test

25

ResultsResults

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)Paired-samples t testsOne-sample t testsAlpha level .05Results on the Immediate Recognition TestResults on the Delayed Recognition TestComparison between mean scores on the

two tests

26

Results on the Immediate Recognition TestResults on the Immediate Recognition Test

Illustration Modality______________________________________________________________________________________

Practice Options SD GD-SA GD+SA TOTAL_______________________________________________________________ Recognition Only (n=30) Mean 4.17 3.91 4.26 10.67 SD 1.10 1.29 0.98 3.66 Writing Only (n=28) Mean 3.36 2.85 3.21 9.32 SD 1.66 1.56 1.43 3.84 Recognition & Writing (n=38) Mean 3.05 2.78 3.41 9.24 SD 1.43 1.54 1.25 3.69 No Practice (n=37) Mean 4.08 4.20 4.30 12.58 SD 0.92 1.11 0.85 2.31 Cross Conditions Mean 3.66 3.44 3.81 10.91 SD 1.37 1.51 1.23 3.61

27

Three-way ANOVAThree-way ANOVA

______________________________________________________________________________________________Source df Mean Square F partial η2 p______________________________________________________________________________________________

Within Subjects

Modality 2 4.91 7.53 .05.001**

Modality*Recognition 2 .65 1.00 .01 .37

Modality*Writing 2 1.14 1.75 .01 .18

Modality*Recognition*Writing 2 1.27 1.95 .01 .14

Error 145 .65______________________________________________________________________________________________

Between Subjects

Recognition 1 .52 .15 .001 .70

Writing 1 120.26 33.46 .19.000**

Recognition*Writing 1 .01 .002 .000 .96

Error 145 3.59______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

**p < .001

28

Paired-samples T Test Paired-samples T Test

____________________________________________________ Paired Differences

Pairs M SD t df p____________________________________________________SD and GD-SA .22 1.15 2.28 148 .02*

GD-SA and GD+SA -.36 1.23 -3.59 148 .00**

SD and GD+SA -.15 1.06 -1.70 148 .09____________________________________________________

*p < .05, **p < .001

29

Results on the Delayed Recognition TestResults on the Delayed Recognition Test

___________________________________________________________________ Illustration Modality

_______________________________________________

Practice Options SD GD-SA GD+SA TOTAL___________________________________________________________________Recognition Only (n=30) Mean 4.20 4.03 4.30 12.53 SD .93 1.10 1.18 2.89

Writing Only (n=28) Mean 3.25 2.64 3.18 9.07 SD 1.48 1.68 1.52 4.28

Recognition and Writing (n=38) Mean 2.97 2.53 3.37 8.87 SD 1.55 1.62 1.28 3.78

No Practice (n=37) Mean 3.97 3.66 4.13 11.76 SD 1.26 1.28 1.14 3.19

Cross Conditions Mean 3.57 3.20 3.75 10.55 SD 1.42 1.56 1.35 3.86____________________________________________________________________

30

Three-way ANOVAThree-way ANOVA _______________________________________________________________________________________________Source df Mean Square F partial η2 p

______________________________________________________________ Within Subjects

________________________________________________________________________________________________Modality 2 9.84 15.47 .011 .000**

Modality*Recognition 2 .37 .59 .004 .56

Modality*Writing 2 1.01 1.59 .01 .21

Modality*Recognition*Writing 2 .74 1.16 .01 .32

Error 130 .64_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Between Subjects_____________________________________________________________

Recognition 1 .88 .21 .002 .65

Writing 1 110.69 26.28 .17 .000**

Recognition*Writing 1 2.59 .62 .01 .43

Error 130 4.21________________________________________________________________________________________________

** p < .001

31

Paired-samples T Test Paired-samples T Test

_________________________________________________________ Paired Differences

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pairs M SD t df p_________________________________________________________ SD and GD-SA .38 1.22 3.60 134 .000**

GD-SA and GD+SA -.55 1.14 -5.56 133 .000**

SD and GD+SA -.16 1.02 -1.86 133 .065_________________________________________________________

*p < .05, **p < .001

32

Paired-samples Paired-samples TT Test Test

_______________________________________________ Paired Differences

Pairs M SD t df p_______________________________________________ Pair 1 .05 1.06 .57 134 .57Pair 2 .26 1.23 2.45 133 .02*Pair 3 .05 1.16 .45 132 .67Pair 4 .38 2.36 1.87 132 .06________________________________________________**p < .001

33

Discussion & ConclusionDiscussion & Conclusion

Major findings of the studySignificant effect for writing practice

strategy on both the immediate and the delayed recognition test;

Significant effect for modality variable on both the immediate and the delayed recognition test;

No significant effect for recognition practice

34


Contradictory to the Activity Theory--learning by doing (in Stull &Mayer, 2007);

Consistent with previous findings with negative effect (e.g., Rieber and Hannafin, 1988; Stull & Mayer, 2007)

Not consistent with some the previous findings for positive effect (e.g., Rieber, Boyce, and Assad 1990) and common proposition.

35


Research Question 1Significant effect for writing practice strategyWriting practice was found detrimental to

students’ learning (writing < no writing)Consistent with cognitive load theory—

excessive activity can create extraneous cognitive load, disrupting generative processing (Stull & Mayer, 2007);

Supports cognitive theory of multimedia learning--split attention principle;

36


Research Question 2No significant effect for the recognition

practice strategy;Not consistent with predictions of the

Interaction theory;Does not support the Activity theory;Possible explanations:

◦Too easy, not much mental effort was required;◦Did not help with deeper processing

37


Research Question 3Significant effect for modality in both tests;Significant difference between GD + SA

and GD – SA in both tests (GD + SA > GD –SA);

Significant difference between Static and GD – SA in both tests (Static > GD – SA);

No (marginal) significant difference (p = .09, p = .065 for immediate and delayed resp.) between GA + SA and GD – SA;

38


Explanations for the significant difference between GD + SA and GD – SA:◦Animation makes the difference◦Consistent with predictions with animation◦Consistent with predictions with the Interaction

Theory (Long, 1996; Chapelle, 2003)◦Consistent with some previous research findings

(e.g., Rieber, 1990a, 1990b, 1991; Blankenship & Dansereau, 2000; Catrambone & Seay, 2002)

◦Advantages of animated graphics over static graphics: motion and trajectory

39


Significant difference between Static and GD – SA in both tests (Static > GD – SA)◦More interaction time for the Static display◦Extraneous cognitive load might be created

during the gradual display;◦Assessment did not cover all aspects of

instruction—GD –SA might convey more on stroke sequence, writing than static;

40


Research Questions 4, 5, & 6No significant effect for the combined

interaction factors (i.e., writing practice and modality; recognition practice and modality; writing practice and recognition practice; modality, writing practice, and recognition practice)

Consistent with the results for modality and practice;

41

LimitationsLimitations

Characters selected for the experiment are limited in number (5 in each modality);

Characters selected for this study were low in density (number of strokes, mean stroke number = 3.6);

Only students without any prior knowledge of the Chinese language were included in the data analyses.

Characters were illustrated in split frames.

42


Based on the results of this study:◦Writing practice is not recommended for

beginning CFL learners in CBI setting; emphasis should be placed on recognition;

◦Cautious integration of practice in CBI.◦Learning by doing may also require the

learner to engage in extraneous cognitive processing (Mayer & Moreno, 2003)

43


Animation should be used cautiously in the development of instructional materials.

Five general guidelines for the use of animation (Alessi & Trollip, 2001).◦use it for important information; ◦use it for demonstrating and modeling; ◦keep it short; ◦consider the great expense of production; ◦provide user controls.

44


In designing CBI, presentation modality should be considered;

As computers are becoming more widely used in instruction, the motivation that comes from their novelty effects is likely to fade. Therefore, it is imperative to develop motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction to adjust to motivational changes (Keller, 1997; Song & Keller, 2001).

45


Recommendations for Future ResearchInvolve high density and compound Chinese

characters;Involve participants with different level of

Chinese language proficiency;Add writing (production) and stroke

sequence test.Add user-control to the program;Display the Chinese characters in one single

frame

46

Questions?

Thank You!

47

computer-assisted chinese character learning: an experimental study computer-assisted chinese...

Documents