THE IMPACT OF COGNITIVE STYLES IN

MOBILE-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING: IS TECHNOLOGICALLY

ENHANCED COURSEWARE

EFFECTIVE FOR EVERY

Takeshi SATO @Tokyo University of Agriculture & Technology, Japan

Tyler BURDEN @Meisei University, Japan

Presentation for CLaSIC 2016 @ National University of Singapore, on 1st of December, 2016.

• Lots of

technology-

enhanced L2

materials

available on

PCs or mobile

devices

• They entail

multimodal

functionsPhrasal Verb Machine by Cambridge University Press

Is such “traditional” L2 vocabulary learning really ineffective?

OUTLINE

1. Background

2. Research Questions

3. Research Procedure

4. Findings

5. Conclusion

BACKGROUND

1. BACKGROUND

Multimodal knowledge presentation is useful for L2 learnersDual Coding Theory &Generative Theory of Multimedia LearningSupported by several studies (Lindstromberg & Boers 2008, Yoshii, Sato, Lai & Burden 2014, Yeh & Wang 2003)

It seems ideal to develop materials with a multimodal environment

JAPOW! by COCONE Corporation

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

More focus on individual differences in C(M)ALL study

Imagers are better at using visual aids than verbalizers (Boers & Lindstromberg 2008)

Confirmed the advantage of imagers in the use of visual aids. (Sato, Lai & Burden 2014)

What device should be developed for verbalizers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZGf2FF01pQ

PHRASAL VERBS (PVS)

Multiword unit consisting of a verb and a preposition (adverb)

“[O]ne of the most challenging features of the English language” (Garnier & Schmitt 2016, p.30)

Cannot acquire PVs by memorizing as an idiom (Lindstromberg, 2001)

Not only language teachers but also cognitive linguists are interested in PVs (ex. Dirven, 2001; Rice 2003; Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003)

Lexical network in Langacker (1987) shows the senses of PVs are

Schema

ExtensionPrototype

Langacker (1987)

Abstract patterns in experience and understanding (Johnson 1987)

PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND PVS WITH AIDS

Schema as

an aid for L2

learning

Metaphorical

sense

Prototypical

sense

PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND PVS WITH AIDS

Strong feelings of

guilt and shame

came over me.

When can

you come

over here?

PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND PVS WITH AIDS

Strong feelings of

guilt and shame

came over me.

When can

you come

over here?

APPLICATIONS FOR PVS (1)

Mobile-based applications developed by Quizlet

Focused on 8 verbs & 3 (5) prepositions

Attached the schematic images of each word

Hypothesize the learners could deeper understanding of the senses from the visual mnemonic aids

APPLICATIONS FOR PVS (2)

Attached verbal explanation about the schematic images

Hypothesize the learners could deeper understanding of the senses from the verbal mnemonic aids

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1.Do imagers who used visual aids acquire the target PVs more successfully than the others?

2.Do verbalizers who used verbal aids acquire the target PVs more successfully than the

RESEARCH

STUDY 1

PARTICIPANTS OF STUDY 1

50 Japanese EFL college students participated

All freshmen from the department of economics in a Japanese private university

Divided into four groups (verbalizers or imagers with verbal or visual aids)

Their English language proficiency (TOEIC) is not statistically different

PROCEDURE

1. Completed the Information Processing Styles Questionnaire (Childers et al, 1983)

2. Answered 18 fill-in-the-blank questions as a pretest developed using an online test-making tool (RealtimeEvaluation Assistance System REAS)

3. Registered Quizlet to learn the target PVs (18 PVs *2 different sentences for each)

4. Answered 28 questions as a post-test after 1-week study with Quizlet.

5. Learned the target vocabulary with Quizlet installed in their mobile devices

6. Answered 15 questions as a delayed test 1 week after the post-test

ANALYSIS

Collected the total scores and the answer time via REAS

Multiple comparisons (Fisher LSD) among the 4 groupsimagers with verbal aidsverbalizers with verbal aidsimagers with visual aidsverbalizers with visual aids

FINDINGS OF STUDY 1

MULTIPLE COMPARISONS: SCORE

No significant difference between any group

6.13

15.13

9.13

7.17

12.23

8.07

7.07

11.75

8

7.27

12.87

8.71

pretest post-test delayed test

verbalizers with verbal aids(n=8)

imagers verbal aids (n=15)

verbalizers visual aids (n=12)

MULTIPLE COMPARISONS: ANSWER TIMEPost:

Verbalizers*verbal vs. Imager*visual (p=.03 < .05)

Delayed:

Imagers*visual vs. Verbalizers*verbal (p=.00 < .05)

Imagers*visual vs. Imagers*verbal (p=.02 < .05)

4.05

6.58

3.39

4.24

6.4

3.18

4.35

6.09

4.114.13

5.57

4.37

pretest post-test delayed test

verbalizers with verbal aids(n=8)

imagers verbal aids (n=15)

verbalizers visual aids (n=12)

imagers visual aids (n=14)

MULTIPLE COMPARISONS: ACCURACY RATE BETWEEN THE TWO TESTSSignificant difference between (% score improvement)

Verbalizers*verbalvs. Verbalizers*visual (p=.04 <.05)

19.99

6.826.937.59

2.15

11.37

5.58

10.9

post-pre post-delayed

verbalizers with verbal aids(n=8)

imagers verbal aids (n=15)

verbalizers visual aids (n=12)

imagers visual aids (n=14)

STUDY 2

PARTICIPANTS OF STUDY 2

50 Japanese EFL college students participated

They are from the same classes as in Research study 1

Divided into four group: Verbalizers*visual aids (n=12) Imagers*verbal aids (n=16)Verbalizers*verbal aids (n=10) Imagers*visual aids (n=15)

PROCEDURES

1. Answered 20 fill-in-the-blank questions with the concretesenses as a pre-test (with REAS)

2. Learned 35 PVs with Quizlet for15 minutes with their mobile devices

3. Answered 20 new questions about the metaphorical senses as a post-test

ANALYSIS

Collected the total scores and the answer time via REAS

Multiple comparisons (Fisher LSD) among the 4 groupsimagers with verbal aidsverbalizers with verbal aidsimagers with visual aidsverbalizers with visual aids

FINDINGS OF STUDY 2

MULTIPLE COMPARISONS: SCORE

Significant difference (in post-test) betweenVerbalizers*verbal vs. verbalizers*visual(p=.027 <.05)

5.92

6.60

8.09

7.29

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

MULTIPLE COMPARISONS: ANSWER TIMESignificant difference (in post-test) betweenImagers*visual vs. Verbalizers*visual (p=.046 <.05)

12:05:54

AM

12:05:17

AM

12:05:36

AM

12:05:03

AM

12:04:36 AM

12:04:45 AM

12:04:54 AM

12:05:02 AM

12:05:11 AM

12:05:20 AM

12:05:28 AM

12:05:37 AM

12:05:46 AM

12:05:54 AM

12:06:03 AM

CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION

ANSWERS TO OUR RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Do imagers who used visual aids acquire the target PVs more successfully than the others?

Partly Yes: There were significant differences in the delayed test in terms of their answer time (study 1)

2. Do verbalizers who used verbal aids acquire the target PVs more successfully than the others?

Partly Yes in the post-test in terms of accuracy rate and in the delayed test in terms of answer time (study1)Partly Yes in the post-test in terms of their scores (study 2)

DISCUSSION

•Learners’ cognitive styles have an effect on learning L2 PVs.

•For imagers, visual aids improved their answering time

•For verbalizers, verbal aids improved their choice of appropriate PVs.

•Small samples and rather short-term research, so further examination needed

•Multimedia is not a panacea

PLEASE HAVE A

LOOK AT OUR

BOOK!

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

ご清聴有難う御座います

Takeshi SATO tsato@cc.tuat.ac.jp

Tyler BURDENtyler.burden@meisei.ac.jp

REFERENCESAl-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: a comparative study. Language Learning and Technology,5 (1), 202-232

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp.1-64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,

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, 125-134.

Dirven, R. (2001). English phrasal verbs: Theory and didactic application. Applied cognitive linguistics, 2, 3-28.

Garnier, M. & Schmitt, N. (2016). Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge?, System, 59, 29-44.

Mayer, R. & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107-119.

Lakoff, G.(1987) Woman, fire and dangerous thing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Langacker, R, W.(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Lindstromberg, S. (2001). (Sometimes) Against the grain, Humanising Language Teaching Magazine, 3(3). Retrieved 12th of November, 2016 from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/may01/lind.htm

Rice, S. (2003). Growth of a lexical network: Nine English prepositions in acquisition. Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 23, 243.

Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Sato, T., Lai, Y., & Burden, T. (2014). Examining the Impact of Individual Differences of Information Processing Styles in Technology-Enhanced Second Vocabulary Learning. Proceedings of CLaSIC 2014. p. 432-440.

Yoshii,M., & Fraitz, J.(2002). Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Retention: The Effect of Text and Picture Annotation Types. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 33-58.