Foreign Language ReadingForeign Language Reading through Hypermedia: through Hypermedia:

Predictors of Vocabulary Learning Predictors of Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehensionand Reading Comprehension

Yavuz AkbulutYavuz Akbulut

Anadolu University, Anadolu University, FacultyFaculty of Education, of Education, Department of Computer Education and Department of Computer Education and

Instructional TechnologiesInstructional TechnologiesEskişehir, Turkey Eskişehir, Turkey

yavuzakbulut@anadolu.edu.tryavuzakbulut@anadolu.edu.tr

22

HypermediaHypermedia

Computer-based applications that provide information Computer-based applications that provide information in a nonlinear way through multiple types of resources in a nonlinear way through multiple types of resources such as text, graphics, sound, video, and animation such as text, graphics, sound, video, and animation (Kommers et al., 1996). (Kommers et al., 1996).

Notable numbers of software developed for language Notable numbers of software developed for language teaching, since hypermedia: teaching, since hypermedia:

present input in multiple formspresent input in multiple formsprovide more interactionprovide more interactionuse authentic material more efficientlyuse authentic material more efficiently

33

Reading Glosses / AnnotationsReading Glosses / Annotations

A glossary is defined as a list of words and A glossary is defined as a list of words and phrases, and their meanings, which are judged to phrases, and their meanings, which are judged to be outside the learner's current competencebe outside the learner's current competence (Widdowson, 1984).(Widdowson, 1984).

Glossaries:Glossaries:help learners to cope with text comprehension help learners to cope with text comprehension sustain authenticity better than text simplificationsustain authenticity better than text simplificationincrease;increase;

- flow of reading flow of reading - independence from dictionariesindependence from dictionaries- accuracy in finding meaningaccuracy in finding meaning

44

Vocabulary LearningVocabulary Learning

Vocabulary learning outcomes vary according to;Vocabulary learning outcomes vary according to;

linguistic proficiencylinguistic proficiencyindividual learning stylesindividual learning stylesannotation typeannotation type

55

Reading ComprehensionReading ComprehensionHypermedia facilitates reading comprehensionHypermedia facilitates reading comprehension

Reading comprehension outcomes vary according to:Reading comprehension outcomes vary according to:

Foreign language reading proficiency Foreign language reading proficiency Prior knowledge on the subject domain Prior knowledge on the subject domain

Topic interest Topic interest

Learning styles Learning styles

66

RReesearch Questionssearch Questions

What are the predictors of vocabulary learning What are the predictors of vocabulary learning in a hypermedia environment for advanced in a hypermedia environment for advanced language learners?language learners?

What are the predictors of reading What are the predictors of reading comprehension in hypermedia environments for comprehension in hypermedia environments for advanced language learners?advanced language learners?

77

Methods & ProceduresMethods & ProceduresDependent VariablesDependent Variables Vocabulary scoresVocabulary scores Reading comprehension scoresReading comprehension scores

ParticipantsParticipants 69 freshman students studying at a TEFL department in a 69 freshman students studying at a TEFL department in a

Turkish university, 47 female and 22 males. Turkish university, 47 female and 22 males. They were randomly assigned to three pools and those They were randomly assigned to three pools and those

three pools were randomly assigned to levels of the three pools were randomly assigned to levels of the treatment. treatment.

Independent VariablesIndependent Variables Annotation type with three levels (i.e., definition, definition plus picture and definition Annotation type with three levels (i.e., definition, definition plus picture and definition

plus video), reading ability, cognitive and perceptual learning styles, prior topical plus video), reading ability, cognitive and perceptual learning styles, prior topical knowledge, topic interest.knowledge, topic interest.

88

Treatment: Hypermedia Reading SoftwareTreatment: Hypermedia Reading Software An authentic reading text was selected via a topic interest An authentic reading text was selected via a topic interest

questionnaire.questionnaire. The text consisted of 1330 wordsThe text consisted of 1330 words 42 words underlined as unknown by the pilot group were 42 words underlined as unknown by the pilot group were

chosen as annotations.chosen as annotations. Three forms of the very same text were prepared using a Three forms of the very same text were prepared using a

reading software designed by Ariew (1999). Each form has reading software designed by Ariew (1999). Each form has the the samesame layout and had 9 pages with a layout and had 9 pages with a linearlinear organization: organization:

Form 1: Form 1: Definition onlyDefinition only

Form 2: Form 2: Definition and associated pictureDefinition and associated picture

Form 3: Form 3: Definition and associated videoDefinition and associated video

A tracking tool built in the software was used to save every A tracking tool built in the software was used to save every single interaction of the readers with the reading material.single interaction of the readers with the reading material.

99

Instruments Instruments (1/3)(1/3)

Vocabulary TestVocabulary Test

- Similar tests were used before - Similar tests were used before (Knight, 1994; Rott, 1999; Waring & (Knight, 1994; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003)Takaki, 2003)

- Consisted of three parts: Form recognition, meaning - Consisted of three parts: Form recognition, meaning recognition and meaning production.recognition and meaning production.

- Two pilot studies were conducted to sustain ideal item facility, - Two pilot studies were conducted to sustain ideal item facility, item discrimination and distractor efficiency indexes, to detect item discrimination and distractor efficiency indexes, to detect unknown distractors and to determine ideal timing.unknown distractors and to determine ideal timing.

- Cronbach’s alpha= .76 in pre-test, .72 in post-test, .69 in - Cronbach’s alpha= .76 in pre-test, .72 in post-test, .69 in delayed testdelayed test

- Interrater R= .94 in pre-test, .98 in post-test, .98 in delayed test- Interrater R= .94 in pre-test, .98 in post-test, .98 in delayed test

1010

InstrumentsInstruments (2/3)(2/3)

Reading Comprehension TestReading Comprehension Test

- Test rubrics were prepared according to Alderson - Test rubrics were prepared according to Alderson (2000), Bachman and Palmer (1996) and Urquhart (2000), Bachman and Palmer (1996) and Urquhart and Weir (1998)and Weir (1998)

- 12 multiple choice, 22 true-false questions- 12 multiple choice, 22 true-false questions

- Proofread by an American colleague for - Proofread by an American colleague for unidiomatic languageunidiomatic language

- Cronbach’s alpha: .79 (multiple-choice), .70 (true-- Cronbach’s alpha: .79 (multiple-choice), .70 (true-false)false)

1111

InstrumentsInstruments (3/3)(3/3)

Nelson & Denny Reading TestNelson & Denny Reading Test (Brown et al.,1993) (Brown et al.,1993)

Prior Knowledge Test Prior Knowledge Test - Consisted of a recall part and open-ended Consisted of a recall part and open-ended

questionsquestions- Interrater reliability coefficients were.97 on the Interrater reliability coefficients were.97 on the

recall part and .96 on open-ended questionsrecall part and .96 on open-ended questions

Learning Style Questionnaire Learning Style Questionnaire (Oxford, 1993)(Oxford, 1993)

Topic interest questionnaire Topic interest questionnaire (Schiefele & Krapp, 1996)(Schiefele & Krapp, 1996)

1212

ProceduresProcedures Prior knowledge, topic interest and vocabulary pre-test

- 2 weeks before the treatment Nelson & Denny Reading Test

- 11 days before the treatment Treatment

- given in a computer lab designed for simultaneous processing of 25 computers each connected to a local area network (LAN).

- 3 sessions were arranged for 69 students, 23 in each.

- Through a data projector, researchers oriented students with the material before each section.

Vocabulary Post-test and Reading Comprehension Test

- Immediately after the treatment Vocabulary Delayed Post-test

- 3 weeks after the treatment

1313

Data Analysis Gained vocabulary scores were calculated All variables were put into a bivariate correlation calculation in

SPSS. Variables that had high correlations with the outcome variables

were put into a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Variables that had high correlations with each other were

eliminated from the analysis and final regression analyses were conducted.

Assumptions of observation independence, linearity, multicollinearity, non-zero variance, normally distributed errors and uncorrelated residual term were sustained.

1414

ResultsResults (1/3)(1/3)

* p < .05 , ** p<.01

Immediate Post-test ScoresImmediate Post-test Scores PredictorPredictorss::- Language proficiency Language proficiency (r=.323, p<.007)(r=.323, p<.007) - Prior topical knowledge Prior topical knowledge (r=.355, p<.003)(r=.355, p<.003) - Annotation type Annotation type (dummy variable)(dummy variable)

PredictorPredictor Explained Explained Variance Variance

(R square)(R square)

F ChangeF Change Sig.Sig. BetaBeta

Language Language ProficiencyProficiency

.10.10 7.8017.801 .007.007 .258**.258**

Prior Prior knowledgeknowledge

.16.16 7.0767.076 .002.002 .241*.241*

Annotation Annotation typetype

.05.05 4.3094.309 .042.042 .228*.228*

1515

ResultsResults (2/3)(2/3)

* p < .05 , ** p<.01

Delayed Post-test ScoresDelayed Post-test Scores Predictors:Predictors:- Language proficiency Language proficiency (r=.319, p<.008)(r=.319, p<.008) - Annotation type Annotation type (dummy variable)(dummy variable)

PredictorPredictor Explained Explained Variance Variance

(R square)(R square)

F ChangeF Change Sig.Sig. BetaBeta

Language Language ProficiencyProficiency

.10.10 7.5907.590 .008.008 .306**.306**

Annotation Annotation typetype

.12.12 4.8284.828 .011.011 .163*.163*

1616

ResultsResults (3/3)(3/3)

* p < .05 , ** p<.01

Reading Comprehension Reading Comprehension Predictors:Predictors:- Reading ability Reading ability (r=.386, p<.001)(r=.386, p<.001) - SAS visual score SAS visual score (r=.248, p<.04)(r=.248, p<.04)

PredictorPredictor Explained Explained Variance Variance

(R square)(R square)

F ChangeF Change Sig.Sig. BetaBeta

Language Language ProficiencyProficiency

.15.15 11.76011.760 .001.001 .383**.383**

Visual scoreVisual score .06.06 4.8874.887 .03.03 .242*.242*

1717

DiscussionDiscussion

-It is better to present an explanation in words and visuals than solely in words (Generative Theory, dual channels assumption)- Linguistic proficiency (Knight, 1994) and annotation type (Seghayer, 2001) are important variables contributing to vocabulary learning. - Reading ability is the basic predictor of text comprehension (Devine, 1988)- There is a relationship between individual learning styles and learning outcomes (Andris, 1996; Plass et al. 1998 & 2003)- Manipulating the instructional design has a beneficial outcome for easy materials as opposed to Sweller (1994) and Sweller et al.(1998)

1818

Pedagogical ImplicationsPedagogical Implications

• Interaction between the reader and the text provides individualized learning. • Learners can have control over their learning process and learn at their own pace. • Learners with different learning styles can make use of hypermedia environments• Presentation of authentic input is made easier with hypermedia software. • Familiarizing L2 learners with hypermedia experience and training them can be quite feasible. • Professionals involved in material development should consider the importance of visual aids in language teaching through hypermedia.

1919

Limitations and Suggestions for Further ResearchLimitations and Suggestions for Further Research

•The target population of the study was EFL students who learn English for academic purposes. This study should be replicated in other learning contexts.•Further studies with larger sample sizes must be conducted to investigate whether a really significant variation existed in the population. •The use of a pre-test affected the generalizability of this study: the results cannot be generalized to people who are not pre-tested. •Participants were exposed to a non-traditional treatment, but tested with traditional testing methods in the current study. Employing on-screen tests where visual elements are incorporated would be more suitable for use in hypermedia environments.

2020

2121

2222

2323