Folse, K., and Chien, Y. (2003). Using L2 Research on Multimedia Annotations to Evaluate CALL Vocabulary Materials. Sunshine State TESOL Journal 2, 25-37. =================================================================

joinherbalistΤεχνίτη Νοημοσύνη και Ρομποτική

17 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

131 εμφανίσεις


1


Folse, K., and Chien, Y. (2003). Using L2 Research on Multimedia Annotations

to Evaluate CALL Vocabulary Materials.
Sunshine State TESOL Journal

2,
25
-
37.



=================================================================



Using L2 Research on Multi
media Annotations to Evaluate CALL Vocabulary Materials



Keith S. Folse and Ya
-
chen Chien


University of Central Florida


Abstract




Current ESL vocabulary software makes use of one or more of four types of
annotations: text, audio, picture, and video.

Teachers and administrators searching for
quality ESL vocabulary software can use recent research findings on the efficacy of these
four types of annotations. In general, evidence from L2 research shows that (1) picture
annotations and video annotations
should not be considered together as “visual annotations”
but rather should be treated as two separate features; (2) the more simultaneous modes of
annotation available to the learner, the better the retention (of L2 vocabulary); (3) video
annotations, tho
ugh certainly more complex than simple pictures, have not been shown
consistently more effective than simple pictures or even text annotations; and (4) textual
clues presented in L1 (i.e., translations) produce better L2 vocabulary retention than textual
c
lues presented in the L2, at least at the lower proficiency levels and possibly at all levels.


Using L2 Research on Multimedia Annotations to Evaluate CALL Vocabulary Materials



The impact of computers on language learning has been positive. Using techn
ology
in the classroom motivates students, encourages them to become problem solvers, and creates
new avenues for the exploration of information and knowledge (Chappelle,1990; Fox, 1998).
Research has also shown that the use of various forms of computer t
echnology results in
more equal participation by all students (Warschauer, 1996), and that cooperative computer
learning with explicit instructions may be more effective than individualized computer
learning (Dalton, Hannafin, & Hooper, 1989). Owston, Mur
phy, & Wideman (1992) found
that students who used computers to write their compositions made more microstructural
changes than macrostructural changes (i.e., editing of specific areas) and revised their writing
at all stages of the writing process. In ad
dition, these students’ papers received significantly
higher ratings on a holistic writing scale. Clearly, the use of computers has proven to be
successful in a variety of ways in second language (L2) classes.


During the last decade, ESL materials devel
opers of computer
-
assisted language
learning (CALL) materials have employed innovative computer technology features to
produce vocabulary software programs that are quite different from the original “drill
-
and
-
kill” products. This impressive variety of CA
LL software uses an array of features to teach
and practice second language vocabulary, including pop
-
up text explanations, concordancing
(Nunan, 1999), web
-
links (often to actual sample usages of the vocabulary in newspapers or

2

magazines), digital video,
3
-
D graphics, audio, photographs, speech recognition, authoring
kits, and digital dictionaries. For the most part, these features explain the new vocabulary
using four types of annotations alone or in various combinations, namely text annotations,
audio a
nnotation, picture annotations, and video annotations.


As the cost of these features has decreased and their usability has been made easier
for even novice teachers, new software products using one or more of these four features
have flooded the market.

Unfamiliar with many of these new features, language educators
are often perplexed by the choices of software, and they are often under time constraints to
determine the most efficient product to buy. Egbert (2001) points out the all too frequent
proble
m in which “the need to spend the money before it is taken away supersedes taking
time for reflection about such an important and long
-
lasting choice” (p. 22). The purpose of
this article is to examine second language research on the efficacy of these fou
r types of
CALL materials annotations, namely text, audio, picture, and video, for information that can
help guide educators in their selection of suitable CALL materials for their students and
teachers.


Evaluating CALL Vocabulary Materials


A logical way

to approach making an instructional software purchase decision is to
conduct a needs analysis of exactly what we want our language learners to be able to do and
then choose software with the features that will help our students achieve those goals.
Thoug
h traditional guidelines for designing educational materials such as Bloom’s taxonomy
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) or Gagne’s seven events

(Gagne, 1992) are useful, evaluation
guidelines designed specifically for CALL materials may be even more helpful her
e. For
example, Healey and Johnson (1997/1998) offer a well
-
designed list of questions to guide
decision
-
makers in selecting the most appropriate CALL program for their particular teaching
situation. Likewise, Gaer (1998) offers a series of questions tha
t educators should consider in
selecting software based upon an extensive list of factors, including the learners’ language
level, the connection between the software content and the curriculum content, and the user
-
friendliness of the software.


The use o
f the systematic, objective assessment criteria that these lists endeavor to
provide is necessary because even subject matter experts (here, instructors) are often unable
to distinguish software that is instructionally effective from that which is not. Fo
r example,
Jolicoeur and Berger (1986) compared teachers’ evaluations of software with actual student
results. The teachers evaluated four programs on fractions and four programs on spelling.
Student learning after using these eight programs was measured

through a pre
-
test, an
immediate post
-
test, and a delayed post
-
test. Results showed that the teachers’ evaluations of
the instructional effectiveness of the software differed significantly from the effectiveness as
measured by student results. In fact,
with the programs for improving student spelling skills,
the most effective spelling program received the lowest teacher rating while the least
effective spelling program was highly rated by the teachers.

Much of the early CALL software in ESL practiced
grammar. While grammar is
important in learning any language, most second language learners see the acquisition of
vocabulary as their greatest source of problems (Clipperton, 1994; Meara, 1980). For
example, in surveys of ESL students in intensive acade
mic programs (Flaitz, 1998;
Henrichsen as cited in James, 1996; James, 1996), students expressed a strong desire for
vocabulary instruction. In a replication of the Henrichsen study, Tan (as cited in James, 1996)
found that students ranked vocabulary deve
lopment second only to opportunities to speak in
class. The language teaching profession has come to understand that focusing on grammar is
not the most efficient way to achieve communicative competence, and the current thinking is

3

that a more integrated
approach with systematic attention to the acquisition of both grammar
and vocabulary is considered much more effective (Groot, 2000).


Though CALL materials deal with all aspects of second language learning, including
pronunciation, reading, grammar, vocab
ulary, composition, spelling, test preparation (e.g., TOEFL),
and listening, CALL research has tended to focus primarily on vocabulary, with a great deal of
attention devoted to the effectiveness of multimedia annotations on reading comprehension and
vocab
ulary acquisition (
Al
-
Seghayer
, 2001; Chun & Plass, 1996a, 1996b, 1997). Vocabulary has
been a likely candidate for CALL research for several reasons. Compared to experimental studies of
pronunciation or grammar learning, it is easier to show growth in v
ocabulary items because
researchers can more easily measure pre
-

and post
-
knowledge and therefore improvement. A
grammar lesson or a pronunciation lesson would not focus on ten grammar points or ten sounds, but
a vocabulary lesson could easily focus on te
n individual vocabulary words. Thus, it may be easier to
show that students did not know but then learned single items of vocabulary more easily than is the
case with items such as pronunciation or grammar that are larger and integrated within a system.
In
addition, CALL programs can provide and keep track of repetition of new vocabulary (i.e.,
frequency), an aspect that L2 vocabulary research (Folse, 1999; Nation, 2001) has shown to be
important in L2 vocabulary acquisition.

Research Results on the Effec
tiveness of Annotations in Vocabulary Programs


While research indicates a positive impact of computer technology on L2 learning, it
is important to consider more specific research on the effect of the four types of annotations
now prevalent in vocabulary
programs, namely text, audio, picture, and video. Because
vocabulary software programs use one or more of these annotations in explaining all target
vocabulary, the success of the learning experience with these programs depends on the
efficacy of the anno
tations.


The fact that designers have been able to combine text, audio, picture, and video
annotations to enhance the content of language learning courses has been seen as a great
advance in language learning. Having more features available seems int
uitively better
pedagogically, but what do research results tell us about which feature or combination of
features is most effective? Is one of these four more effective than the other three? Is there
perhaps an optimal combination of these annotations t
hat produces better language learning?


Defining the Four Modes of Annotation


There are four different modes of multimedia annotation that are commonly used in
ESL vocabulary software.


These four features are text annotation, audio annotation, still
pict
ure annotation, and video annotation.

Text Annotations


Text annotations offer information in the form of words without any pictorial or audio
clues and appear in one of two forms.


They may appear as marginal vocabulary glossaries
that provide definition
s of a vocabulary entry in L1 or L2 or in the more structured format of
a computerized dictionary.


For example, in a reading passage, students may click on a word
and view a pop
-
up explaining the unknown word.


Audio Annotations






Audio annotations are

usually spoken text, preferably using the voice of a native
speaker.


When the student clicks on a certain word or phrase, both the word and its
definition might be read aloud. Other possibilities include additional information about the
meaning or usage

of the word or even a sample phrase or sentence with the word.

Picture Annotations


Picture annotations are usually intended to clarify descriptions or to depict
ambiguous or unfamiliar words.


In many of the popular ESL dictionary programs, clicking

4

on

a word brings up an annotation with an illustration that shows the item or the meaning of
the item.

Video Annotations


Video annotations are digitized video or animations. They can be used to depict
ambiguous or unfamiliar words, particularly verbs, or to

demonstrate the content of passages
from a story. Many CALL programs that use video annotations feature professional actors
and are presented in Quicktime movies or 3
-
D graphics.


Research Results for the Four Modes of Annotation


Research has examined h
ow various combinations of the four annotation modes of
text, audio, picture, and video impact second language vocabulary acquisition. Research on
text annotations, the only annotation studied by itself, has dealt with direct versus indirect
information r
egarding the new vocabulary as well as the use of native language versus second
language in defining the new vocabulary. Research has also compared learning from text
annotations versus picture annotations versus both text + picture annotations. Finally,

research has examined learning from text annotations versus a combination of text + picture
annotations versus a combination of text + video annotations. Perhaps reflecting a primary
focus on or even bias toward visual learning, very little research has
included audio
annotations.

Text Annotations


Perhaps because text annotations were the first multimedia applications in ESL, this
feature has been researched more than the other three annotation types. One important
question regarding text annotations th
at is of great interest to CALL designers and teachers
alike is whether the meanings should be given directly or whether they should have to be
inferred from a context. While research using traditional print format (e.g., textbooks) has
shown that learner
s can infer correct meanings of unknown words when given adequate
contextual clues (Hulstijn, 1993), many studies have shown that learners often infer an
incorrect meaning (Hulstijn, 1992, Laufer & Sim, 1985). Explaining why guessing in
context

even guess
ing correctly

does not lead to vocabulary learning, Grace (1998)
concludes that it is important for learners to be assured that their guesses are correct while
they are guessing the meaning of the words.


A second question is whether the meanings, when giv
en, should be in the target
language (L2) or in the first language (L1). Several studies (Hulstijn, 1992; Hulstijn,
Hollander, & Greidnaus, 1996; Watanabe, 1997) using traditional print format found that
providing L1 clues to unknown vocabulary items resu
lted in greater retention of new
vocabulary items than L2 clues did. Results from these non
-
CALL studies are supported by
CALL research findings (Grace, 1998; Hulstijn, 1992; Laufer & Shmueli, 1997) that have
also shown that text clues given in the L1 res
ult in better vocabulary retention than text clues
given in the L2. This would appear to be true for all levels, not just beginners. For example,
the participants in Laufer & Shmueli’s study (1997) were high school students, not beginners.
Furthermore,
research on L2 dictionary use shows that nonnative speakers, even advanced
ones, including teachers themselves, prefer bilingual dictionaries when they use dictionaries
for their own purposes, not with their students in class (personal correspondence, B. L
aufer,
January 9, 2003).

Text versus Picture versus Text + Picture


Using data from American university students studying second
-
semester German,
Kost, Foss, & Lenzini (1999) examined the effectiveness of a combination of pictures and L1
translation in t
hree annotation conditions: English translation (L1), picture, and English
translation
and

picture. The researchers found that the third condition, English translation
and picture, produced the best results. The authors conclude that the combination of
two

5

different
types

of information may have allowed the students to store new information in two
different storage systems

verbal and non
-
verbal

and that this dual coding (Paivio, 1986)
of the input help
s

increase the readers’ number of retrieval options.









A study conducted by Yoshii (2000) with ESL learners also yielded similar results. In
Yoshii's study, a between
-
subjects design was employed. One hundred and fifty
-
one adult
ESL students were divided into three groups: text annotation only, pictur
e annotation only,
and text annotation combined with picture annotation. Participants were asked to read a story
using the Internet. Target words in the story were annotated. Two post
-
tests were
administered: an immediate test and a delayed test. Picture
recognition, word recognition,
and definition
-
supply were evaluated through the post
-
tests. The results indicated that the
combination group (annotations with picture + text) performed best among the three in both
the immediate test and delayed test, indi
cating that the combination annotation was the most
effective of the three types.


Interestingly, the differences among the types in the delayed test
were slightly smaller than those for the immediate test.

Text versus Text + Picture versus Text + Video


Al
-
Seghayer

(2001) conducted studies on the effectiveness of multimedia annotation
modes on vocabulary acquisition.


There were a total of 30 ESL intermediate level students
involved with TOEFL scores ranging from 450 to 500. A within
-
subjects design was

used;
therefore, all participants had full access to the same version of the program. The participants
were introduced to an interactive multimedia computer program designed by the
researcher.


The content of this program was based on a 1,300
-
word narrati
ve passage from
Mundahl.


In the passage, target words were annotated in different modes: text, graphics,
video, and sound. The target words were controlled for frequency, grammatical category, and
concrete or abstract concept.










The participants w
ere asked to read the story, take a vocabulary test, fill out a
questionnaire, and take part in a short interview.


The vocabulary test was divided into two
parts: retention and production. The retention test was presented in multiple
-
choice format
with fo
ur alternatives. In the production test, students were asked to define, in English, six
selected words that were annotated in the story. Text with video, text with still picture, and
text only were assessed for their effect on vocabulary retention.


The re
sults showed that text
definition coupled with video clips produced the best results among the three, and text only
was the least effective mode among the three.
Al
-
Seghayer

(2001) explained that the dynamic
stimuli (as opposed to the still pictures) are m
ore easily remembered and are more effective
in helping learners easily build mental depictions. Another explanation points to the
redundancy hypothesis that students received twice the information when text was coupled
with video.


The richness in contex
t and the authenticity that video provides make the
information both more meaningful and more memorable (Sherwood, Kinzer, Hasselbring, &
Brandsford, 1987).










Similar research conducted earlier by Chun and Plass (1996a) yielded contrary
results.


T
his earlier research measured the effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary
acquisition and the relationship between look
-
up behaviors and performance on vocabulary
tests.


Three studies were done with a total of 160 university students studying Germ
an. In all
three studies, a within
-
subjects design was employed. The participants were asked to use the
Cyber Buch program for reading German texts.


The story provided in the program consisted
of 762 words. A total of 82 words were annotated in

one of the

following modes: text only,
text coupled with picture, and text coupled with video.


Post
-
tests were administered and
students were asked to report the retrieval cue that accompanied each question. The results
showed that, first of all, words with text de
finition accompanied by a picture were recalled
better than words accompanied by video annotations. Second, students are likely to look up
multiple annotations when they are available to them. Third, the frequency of the look
-
up

6

behavior does not imply bet
ter performance in the vocabulary test. Chun & Plass proposed
that this discrepancy could be explained by the fact that that still pictures can be viewed for
whatever duration of time the learner wishes.


This allows each student to take enough time
to dev
elop a mental model of the information, which then serves as a good retrieval cue.


In
contrast, the videos in the study were usually short.


They allowed less time for learners to
make associations and store the information in long
-
term memory. Chun and P
lass concluded
that, because of these differences between video annotations and picture annotations, the two
modes of annotation should not be combined into a composite category of visual annotation
but should remain separate categories.

Audio


Using a hyp
ertext/hypermedia environment for the teaching of second language
vocabulary, Svenconis & Kerst (1995) compared learning under four conditions: words
presented in a semantic mapping format alone, words presented in a semantic mapping
format with audio wor
ds presented in lists, and words presented in lists with audio. In spite
of the theoretical advantage of semantic mapping, results did not show the semantic format to
be more effective for vocabulary learning per se. However, with the addition of the sou
nd
factor, semantic mapping was shown to be statistically more effective in helping students
retain new vocabulary. Svenconis and Kerst found that audio can be a powerful factor in
producing better word retention when it is combined with a second factor,
such as semantic
mapping. In fact, the effect of audio was so powerful that with the passage of time and
subsequent increase in forgetting, the effect of audio or no audio was statistically significant
while the method of presentation of the vocabulary (i
.e., semantic mapping or lists) was not.

Conclusions


CALL materials form an integral part of almost every ESL/EFL program. When
educators are selecting CALL materials for their program, one way to go about selecting the
material is to conduct a needs ana
lysis and then see which CALL materials meet those needs.
Numerous checklists (Gaer, 1998; Healey and Johnson, 1997/1998) are available to help with
this process. As shown in Table 1, L2 research offers the following important points to
consider in choos
ing CALL programs: (1) picture annotations and video annotations should
not be considered together as “visual annotations” but rather should be treated as two separate
features; (2) learners have better retention of L2 vocabulary when they have access to
multiple simultaneous modes of annotation; (3) video annotations, though certainly more
complex than simple pictures, have not been shown to be consistently more effective than
simple pictures or even text annotations; and (4) textual clues presented in L1

(i.e.,
translations) produce better L2 vocabulary learning than textual clues presented in the L2, at
least at the lower proficiency levels and possibly at all levels.


[ INSERT TABLE 1 HERE OR NEAR HERE ]









However different the results of the CAL
L studies reviewed here were, all were
consistent with the dual
-
coding theory proposed by Paivio (1986).


Paivio asserted the
importance of providing both verbal information and visual information.


Lessons that
combine verbal information with non
-
verbal i
nformation such as pictures are usually
remembered better than those that consist of verbal information alone.


Thus, providing both
verbal and visual information helps learners make referential connections between the two
forms of mental representation an
d helps learners acquire the information more effectively
and efficiently
.










While it has been possible for several years to produce instructional materials with
one or more of the features of text, pictures, and video, the time
-
consuming nature of
older
methods of production, the scarcity of individuals with the specialized training required in the

7

use of the equipment, and the expense of the equipment itself made production costs
prohibitive for all but a few specialized users.


However, recent dra
matic decreases in the
costs of computer and video production equipment, the relative ease of use of new production
techniques and software, along with a greater interest in video production as a career have
created an environment in which the production o
f innovative teaching materials is affordable.
As a result, new offerings are not only expected but also eagerly anticipated by both students
and instructors.

Suggestions for Further Study


More research needs to be done on all four annotation modes. This

is especially true
for audio annotations, for very little research exists on this mode. In addition, more work
needs to be done on all of the visual modes regarding the use of color. Do color pictures
result in more learned vocabulary than do black and
white pictures? Do video clips in color
produce different learning results than black and white video clips? Finally, does the length
of viewing time matter? Does watching a longer video clip about a word result in a higher
retention rate?


Studies have

shown that the learners’ level of L2 proficiency can influence
subsequent vocabulary learning (Folse, 1999; Knight, 1994). Research needs to be done on
how the learners’ level of L2 proficiency interacts with the four annotation types. Do
learners with
a certain level of L2 proficiency benefit more from one type of annotation or
combination of annotation types more than another proficiency level does?

Future studies that might yield useful information in this area would also include
testing the students
to determine whether their "preferred" learning modes are auditory, visual
or tactile.


Knowing the students’ preferred learning mode would allow researchers to control
for variations caused by these preferences and investigate whether such preferences are

significant in language learning. Finally, more research should be done on the other skill
areas. How do these annotations types affect ESL grammar, pronunciation, reading, and
spelling? Does one type of annotation or combination of annotations appear
to have a
facilitative effect? Answers to these and other questions will certainly help educators in
selecting software that best suits the needs of their students in improving their L2 proficiency.



8

References

Al
-
Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of mul
timedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary

acquisition: A comparative study.
Language Learning & Technology, 5,

202
-
232.

Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001).
A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of
educational objectives.

New York:
Longman.

Chapelle C. (1990). The discourse of computer
-
assisted language learning: Toward a context for

descriptive research.
TESOL Quarterly, 24,

199
-
255.

Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996a).


Effects of multimedia annota
tions on vocabulary


acquisition.


The Modern Language Journal, 80,

183
-
198.

Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996b).


Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia.
System, 24,


503
-
519.

Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1997).


Research on text comprehension in mul
timedia environments.

Language Learning & Technology, 1,

60
-
81.

Clipperton, R. (1994). Explicit vocabulary instruction in French immersion.
The Canadian

Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 50,

736
-

749.

Dalton, D., Hannaf
in, M., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative

computer
-
assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes.
Educational

Technology Research and Development, 37(2),

15
-
24.

Egbert, J. (January/February 2001). Choosing softwa
re for the English language classroom.

ESL Magazine, 4,

22.

Flaitz, J. (1998).
Exit survey of the English language institute.

Tampa: University of South

Florida.

Folse, K. (1999).
The effect of type of written practice activity on second languag
e

vocabulary retention.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida,
Tampa.

Fox, G. (September 1998). The Internet: Making it work in the ESL classroom.
The

Internet TESL Journal, IV.

Retrieved February 8, 2003, from
http://iteslj
.org/Articles/Fox
-
Internet.html

Gaer, S. (March 1998).


Using software in the adult ESL classroom.

Washington: Center

for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 418607)
Retrieved January 31, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ncle/di
gests/SwareQA.htm

Gagne, R. (1992). Principles of instructional design. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich College Publishers.

Grace, C. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentence
-
level

translations: Implications for t
he design of beginning
-
level CALL software.
The Modern
Language Journal 82,

533
-
544.

Groot, P. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition.
Language Learning

& Technology 4,

60
-
81.

Healey, D., & Johnson, N. (Winter 1997/1998). A

place to start in selecting software.

CAELL Journal 8(1).
Retrieved February 8, 2003, from

http://www.onid.orst.edu/~healeyd/cj_software_selection.html

Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development.
Studies in

Second Language Acq
uisition, 21,

303
-
317.

Hulstijn, J. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in

incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.),
Vocabulary and Applied

Linguistics

(pp. 113
-
125). London: Macmillan.

Hulstij
n, J. (1993). When do foreign
-
language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar


9

words? The influence of task and learner variables.
The Modern Language Journal 77,

139
-
147.

Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary
learning

by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary
use, and reoccurrence of unknown words.
The Modern Language Journal, 80,

327
-
339.

James, M. (1996).
Improving second language reading comprehension: A

comp
uter
-
assisted vocabulary development approach.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Hawaii, Manoa.

Jolicoeur, K. & Berger, D. (1986). Do we really know what makes educational software

effective? A call for empirical research on effective
ness.
Educational Technology 26,

7
-
11.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and

vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities.
The Modern
Language Journal, 78,

285
-
299.

Kost, C., Foss, P.,
& Lenzini, J. (1999). Textual and pictorial glosses: Effectiveness on incidental

vocabulary growth when reading in a foreign language.
Foreign Language Annals 32,

89
-
113.

Laufer, B. & Shmueli, K. (1997.) Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anyt
hing to do with

it?
RELC Journal 28,

89
-
108.

Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning.
Language

Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 13(4),
221
-
246.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001).
Learning vocabulary in another lan
guage.

Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Nunan, D. (1999).
Second language teaching & learning.

Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Owston, R., Murphy, S. & Wideman, H. (1992). The effects of word processing on

students' writing quality and revision str
ategies.
Research in the Teaching of English,
26,
249
-
276.

Paivio, A. (1986).


Mental representation: A dual
-
coding approach.


New York:


Oxford University Press.

Sherwood, R., Kinzer, C., Hasselbring, T., & Bransford, J. (1987). Macro
-
contexts for

lea
rning: Initial findings and issues.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1(2),

93
-
108.

Svenconis, D. & Kerst, S. (1995). Investigating the teaching of second
-
language vocabulary


through semantic mapping in a hypertext environment.
CALICO Journal, 12

(2/3), 33
-


57.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face
-
to
-
face and electronic discussion in the second language

classroom.
CALICO Journal 13(2),

7
-
26.

Watanabe, Y. (1998). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on

incidental learning of

foreign language vocabulary.
Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19,

287
-
307.

Yoshii, M. (2000).
Second language incidental vocabulary retention: The effect of

multimedia annotation types.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South

F
lorida, Tampa.


10

Table 1

Research Results for the Four Modes of Vocabulary Annotation

Type of
Annotation


Study


Findings




Text:

Laufer & Sim, 1985

EFL. Learners often infer incorrect meaning of
unknown words even when given adequate
context.


Hulstij
n, 1992


EFL. Learners often infer an incorrect meaning
of unknown words; L1 clues better than L2 clues.


Hulstijn, 1993

EFL. Learners can infer correct meanings of
unknown words when given adequate context.


Hulstijn, Hollander &
Greidnaus, 1996

Frenc
h as a Foreign Language. L1 clues better
than L2 clues.


Laufer & Shmueli, 1997

English as a Foreign Language. L1 clues better
than L2 clues.


Watanabe, 1997

ESL. L1 clues better than L2 clues.


Grace, 1998 .

ESL. L1 clues better than L2 clues

Text

versus
Picture versus
Text + Picture:

Kost, Foss & Lenzini,
1999


German as a Foreign Language. Compared L1
text, picture, or L1 + Picture. Results: L1
(English) + picture produced best results


Yoshii, 2000

ESL. Compared L2 text, picture, or L2 text
+
picture. Results: L2 text + picture produced best
results.

Text versus Text +
Picture versus
Text + Video:

Chun & Plass, 1996a

German as a Foreign Language. Compared L1
text, L1 text with picture, and L1 text with video.
Results: Text with picture w
as more effective for
vocabulary retention text with video. When
multiple annotations are available for a word,
students are likely to look up multiple
annotations. Frequency of look
-
up did not
correlate with vocabulary learning.


Al
-
Seghayer, 2001

ESL.

Compared L2 text, L2 text with picture,
and L2 text with video. Results: L2 text with
video was best, text only was the least effective.

Audio:

Svenconis & Kerst, 1995

ESL. Compared semantic mapping with sound,
mapping without sound, word lists with
sound,
and word lists without sound. Results: No
difference between presenting words in semantic
mapping and in lists, but when sound was added,
semantic mapping resulted in a statistically
significant advantage over word lists.


Bio


Keith S. Folse, Ph
.D.


Keith Folse is coordinator of the M.A. TESOL program at the University of Central Florida
and is the author of 28 ESL textbooks. He has taught ESL/EFL in the U.S., Japan, Malaysia,

11

Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. He has conducted teacher training workshop
s in the United States,
Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Argentina, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan.



Ya
-
Chen Chien


Ya
-
Chen Chien holds her M.A. in TESOL from UCF, where she is currently pursing a Ph.D.
in Curriculum & Instruction. She has taught EFL in Taiwan as well
as ESL in the U.S. She
is currently teaching ESOL Issues for pre
-
service teachers.