Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu

Annotations in captioned animation: Effects on vocabulary learningand listening skillsq

Abdullah S. Aldera, Mohammed Ali Mohsen*

College of Arts & Science, Najran University, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 22 May 2012Received in revised form3 April 2013Accepted 6 April 2013

Keywords:AnnotationsCaptionsAnimationListening comprehensionAcquisition

q This article was made possible through the kindMohammed Hafed for technical support. Our appreci* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ966 75447572.

E-mail addresses: mmohsen1976@gmail.com, mam

0360-1315/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.018

a b s t r a c t

This study investigates whether the availability of annotations for captioned animation in multimedialistening activities aids L2 vocabulary acquisition and facilitates listening skills. Fifty Arab-speakingadult EFL learners watched an audiovisual animated story under one of three conditions:(a) animation þ captions þ keyword annotation (ACA), (b) animation þ captions (AC), and (c) animationalone (A). After viewing the animation, the learners completed computerized vocabulary recognition andlistening comprehension posttests, as well as non-computerized (i.e., written) vocabulary productionand listening recall tests. All four tests were administered to the students four weeks after the treat-ments. The results from the mixed ANOVAs indicated that the ACA group significantly outperformed theAC group on the vocabulary recognition and vocabulary production tests and that the AC group in turnsubstantially outperformed the A group on the same tests. Conversely, the annotations did not signifi-cantly improve listening comprehension and recall over time. The A group significantly outscored theACA and the AC groups in listening comprehension and recall over time. The pedagogical implications ofthis study suggest that annotations in captioned animation facilitate vocabulary acquisition but hinderlistening comprehension and recall.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The current advances in multimedia technology have helped to make instructional materials more authentic because these technologiescan add multiple modes that can facilitate second language acquisition (SLA). In this regard, Chapelle (2009) argued that the designers ofcomputer assisted language learning (CALL) tasks need tomake linguistic items salient in the CALL input to enhance input processing. Theseitems can be made salient by highlighting them and providing learners with the opportunity to interact with the computer and consult thehelp options as needed. These interactions can be achieved through multimedia annotations because they have the potential to make thetext prominent and provide multiple modes through which L2 learners can access the input to check the meaning of the target words.Multimedia technology enables teachers and practitioners to caption audiovisual material using software such as Adobe Flash, ViewPoint,and iMovie; these captions can either be displayed online as in YouTube or packaged in DVD software. Teachers use video captioning to helpstudents visualize spoken words because this type of captioning provides multi-sensory information that allows the students to syn-chronously view video action and printed words while hearing sound.

Multimedia annotations have been extensively employed in language learning and teaching, but to date the potential of annotations in L2dynamic narrative animation mode to improve listening skills and L2 vocabulary learning has not been tested. Another issue that needsaddressing is whether annotating or captioning animation would lead to the improvement of vocabulary and listening skills. Therefore, thepurpose of this article is to address whether adding annotations to captioned animation in L2 audiovisual listening activities can helplearners comprehend L2 listening and improve their vocabulary acquisition.

support of the Deanship of Scientific Research, Najran University, Project No. (NU10/45). We would like to thank Dr.ation goes to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments when revising the first draft of this study.

ohsen@nu.edu.sa, m.alaskary@yahoo.com (M.A. Mohsen).

ll rights reserved.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 61

This article first summarizes the research performed on the effect of video captioning and multimedia annotations on L2 vocabularylearning and listening skills that led to our specific research questions. The article then explains themethods used to investigate the researchquestions. Finally, it discusses the implications of the findings and suggests areas for further research.

2. Literature review

In this section, we outline the previous research on the effectiveness of multimedia annotations in improving L2 vocabulary acquisitionand comprehension. We also review the research conducted on the impact of video captioning on L2 vocabulary acquisition and listeningskills. The review ends with the unresolved issues that have generated the research questions of this study.

2.1. Multimedia vocabulary annotations (MVAs) in L2 reading and listening contexts

Multimedia annotation, a note that explains the meaning of a target word, is an effective tool used to aid vocabulary acquisition andcomprehension. Jacobs, Dufon, and Fong (1994) argued that annotations were beneficial for L2 learning as they (a) enhance comprehension,(b) increase vocabulary, (c) satisfy students’ preferences, and (d) provide more extensive use of authentic text. In this regard, Chun (2006)pointed out that multimedia annotations had been the subject of numerous studies in second language learning. For example, severalstudies (Al-Seghayer, 2001; Chun & Plass, 1996; Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 1998; 2003; Yoshii, 2006) investigated the potential benefitsof multimedia annotations in L2 reading comprehension activities on L2 vocabulary acquisition. The findings from these studies demon-strated the positive effects of annotations on L2 vocabulary learning. Another line of studies tested the effects of multimedia annotations inan L2 aural context (Jones, 2003; 2004; Jones & Plass, 2002). These studies showed contradictory results in terms of L2 vocabularyacquisition. For example, Jones and Plass (2002) and Jones (2003) indicated that students learned L2 vocabulary more efficiently when theyprocessed annotations than when they did not. In contrast, Jones (2004) found no significant differences between students who receivedannotations and those received no annotations.

MVA studies in the L2 reading context have investigated the effects of annotations, in either dynamic video or static picture mode, on L2vocabulary learning. While Al-Seghayer (2001) demonstrated the efficacy of the dynamic video mode over the static picture mode, Chunand Plass (1996) found the reverse, and Akbulut (2007) observed no significant differences between the two. The contradictory findingsin these studies could either be attributed to the different videos and images used or to the different assessment tools administered (Mohsen& Balakumar, 2011). MVA studies in the listening context, however, have not yet compared the efficacy of the various modes as an aid to L2vocabulary acquisition.

Concerning the use of MVAs in listening comprehension activities, to date annotations have never been applied to the L2 audiovisualmode that accompanies captions. Therefore, there is a need to examine the efficacy of annotations in L2 video captioning for improving L2vocabulary learning and listening comprehension. Another issue that requires further investigation is which of the modes investigated inthis study, annotation plus caption plus animation (ACA), animation plus caption (AC) or animation (A), most effectively aids vocabularylearning and listening comprehension.

2.2. The effects of video captioning on vocabulary and listening comprehension

Video captioning, defined by Danan (2004, p.232) as “on-screen text in a given language combined with a soundtrack in the samelanguage”, is viewed as an effective instructional mode that is used to translate visual images and aural sounds into text, which couldenhance language acquisition. It is obvious that L2 learners, particularly beginners, have difficulty decoding native speech when exposed toauthentic input. Therefore, providing captions could help learners to link thewrittenwords to their actual speech. For example, Garza (1991)found that video captioning increased general comprehension, both for ESL learners and for English speakers learning Russian. Similarly,Huang and Eskey (1999–2000) found that students who viewed captions scored significantly higher than those who did not.

Several other studies (Baltova, 1999; Danan, 1992) have examined different variables pertaining to video captioning, such as the modeemployed: (a) L2 video þ L2 captions, (b) L2 video þ L1 captions and (c) L1 video þ L2 captions. A general consensus has arisen from thesestudies that presenting video along with captions in a target language tends to lead to better comprehension and vocabulary learning. Inaddition, Guillory (1998) demonstrated that the use of keyword captions rather than full captions helped the learners to comprehend thevideo by decreasing the cognitive load imposed by full captioning. The present study, however, examines full captions in a target languageby annotating the keywords, and it investigates which mode (i.e., annotations plus captions, captions alone, or no captions) best facilitateslistening comprehension and vocabulary learning.

The research has not been able to determine whether the captioning language, either L1or L2, aids comprehension. For example,Markham, Peter, and McCarthy (2001) investigated the effects of using English captions, Spanish captions, or no captions for 169intermediate-level Spanish students. The participants watched and listened to a passage using DVD technology, and after viewing thepassage, they were asked to write a protocol summary of the story and to answer multiple-choice comprehension questions. The studentswho received English captions (L1) significantly outperformed the Spanish (L2) group, who in turn substantially outscored the no-captionsgroup. However, the Markham et al. findings were limited because the researchers tested comprehension in English, the students’ mothertongue. The students with mother-tongue captions might not have listened and might have primarily focused on the English text in theirattempt to comprehend the video. In contrast, Stewart and Pertusa (2004) reported a positive impact from intralingual captions (i.e., Spanishcaptions) on L2 vocabulary improvement. In their study, the researchers presented Spanish films to two different groups of English speakingstudents enrolled in Spanish classes. One group viewed the films with English captions, while the other group viewed the films with Spanishcaptions. The results of a vocabulary recognition test revealed a slight difference between the two captioningmodes. However, the students’responses to the follow-up questionnaires showed a positive effect from viewing the film with captions in the target language. Unfortu-nately, the findings of the study were not generalizable because it did not assess the long-term retention of words with either mode ofcaptioning.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–7562

In recent years, the development of web-based multimedia technology has encouraged designers to create online navigational patternsto facilitate listening comprehension and vocabulary learning. In this area, Grgurovi�c and Hegelheimer (2007) examined whether captionsor transcripts were more beneficial for aiding listening comprehension. In their study, they showed an academic lecture to 18 intermediate-level ESL learners through a multimedia program containing the two help options: (a) an L2 video accompanied with L2 captions and (b) anL2 video plus an L2 script. The students were instructed to use the help options only when they encountered “comprehension breakdowns”(Grgurovi�c & Hegelheimer, 2007, p. 51). The students could also use help options when their answers to the post-listening comprehensiontests were incorrect. If the students answered correctly, theymoved on to a new video segment or a related task. Grgurovi�c and Hegelheimerrequested that the students complete the questionnaire and recall test two weeks after the treatment. The results of the study showed thesuperiority of the use of captions, even for long-term retention. Despite the availability of the help options used by Grgurovi�c andHegelheimer, their methods could be improved upon, as they did not provide annotations via help options within their online program.

Examining different modes with video captioning, Sydorenko (2010) investigated what learners attended to while exposed to videocaptioning. In her study, three groups of students received multimedia input under three different conditions: (a) video, audio, and captions(VAC); (b) video with captions (VC); and (c) video with audio (VA). The students then took written and aural vocabulary posttests. Thefindings demonstrated that the students paid attention to the captions first, then the video, then the audio. Furthermore, these findingsdemonstrated the positive effects of video captioning (VAC and VC) on vocabulary learning, while they showed that videowith audio tendedto aid listening comprehension. In her suggestions for future research, Sydorenko suggested investigating dynamic annotations in videocaptions, which is the intention of this study.

2.3. Literature summary and research questions

In sum, video captioning is a powerful pedagogical tool that can facilitate vocabulary learning and listening comprehension. Multimediatechnology has advanced the video mode by adding extra navigational tools that learners can use to rewind, pause, replay, segment videoclips, and consult annotations. The research findings to date indicate that captioning supports vocabulary development and listeningcomprehension. Nevertheless, no single study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, has investigated the effects of annotations in videocaptioning on listening comprehension and vocabulary learning. Another issue requiring further investigation is the extent to which thethree modes (i.e., ACA, AC, and A) can facilitate the listening skills and vocabulary learning of EFL learners. To address these issues, this studyseeks to answer the following questions:

1. Do annotations affect L2 learning (in terms of vocabulary recognition, (i.e., written) vocabulary production, listening comprehension,and listening recall) over the short- and long-term?

2. What is the best mode for L2 learning (ACA, AC, or A) as measured by (a) vocabulary recognition, (b) (i.e., written) vocabulary pro-duction, (c) listening comprehension, and (d) listening recall tests?

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The participants in this study were 50 native speakers of Arabic enrolled in EFL courses in the first semester of the preparatory year atNajran University, Saudi Arabia. As a part of the preparatory year program, these students were taking intensive classes in English, with afocus on reading, writing, listening, speaking, and grammar, for 20 h per week. After two semesters of intensive English courses, all studentswould go on to major in scientific subjects at different colleges. The students’ ages ranged between 19 and 21, with the average age being19.90. Due to university rules and the cultural values that support gender segregation in classes, all of the participants were male students.The students were placed in English programs according to their performance on the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). The OPT comprises twosections: Use of English and Listening. The students’ scores in both sections were between 20 and 40, which corresponded to the level A21

(i.e., high beginners). Of the nine sections of students enrolled in the first term of the preparatory year, three sections were randomlyselected for the study because they had listening classes in one lab at the same time (8–9 am) with their original instructors. Of the 78students registered in these sections, the researchers selected 50 students as a sample for this study because those students were fullyparticipating in the tasks.

3.2. Material and apparatus

The researchers downloaded a 610-word story called “Guji Guji” from the Internet (in 2011, from www.storylineonline.net). The storycenters on a crocodile that is raised as a duck (see Appendix A). The storywas presented via dynamic animation using three different modes:(a) animation plus captions plus keyword annotations (ACA), (b) animation plus captions (AC), and (c) animation alone (A). Animation wasused in all three treatments because it was compatible with the text and it effectively depicted the events of the story. In addition, theanimated story was chosen for its narration, which was clear and very expressive2 in its tone and pitch. Furthermore, its keywords wereannotated both pictorially and textually. The story was also selected for its visual attractiveness and the use of new vocabulary.

The story’s readability was evaluated by applying the Lix (Schulz,1981) Formula.3 The readability scale, as determined by the Lix formula,was 27.7, indicating that the story was easy in terms of sentence structure but that there was a great deal of content-specific vocabulary

1 Within the Common European Framework of Reference, the A2 refers to a Basic User level.2 The narrator was Robert Guillaume, the famous actor.3 The Lix formula is a readability measure to calculate the difficulty of reading a foreign text. The formula is as follows: LIX ¼ A/B þ (C � 100)/A, where A ¼ Number of

words, B ¼ Number of periods (defined by period, colon or capital first letter), C ¼ Number of long words (over 6 letters).

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 63

involved. According to Schulz (1981), a scale between 20 and 30 on the Lix readability text is appropriate for 8- to 16-year-old students. Thislevel was deemed to be appropriate for high-beginning students such as those who took part in this study.

In pedagogical terms, the story is rich in syntactic and lexical elements that the participants can easily identify and use. Prominentsyntactic functions include the simple past, past progressive, and reported speech. The text also contained many new vocabulary items,which were related to the theme of the story, ducks and crocodiles, (e.g., “hatch”, “claws”, “feather”, “beak”, and “waddle”).

When the students (ACA group) scrolled over an annotated word, its definition was displayed and illustrated with an example. Inaddition, the students could see an image of the annotated word and hear its pronunciation. This design is in accordance with Mayer’s(2003) principle of integrated presentations, which assumes that the text and the animation should be placed within one window (seeFig. 1). In addition, when the students in the ACA mode group scrolled over the annotation, the video and the caption paused; when theymoved the mouse back, the video continued from where it had paused (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. A screen shot of the annotated word “hatch”(ACA mode).

Fig. 2. A screen shot of the captions presented with animation (AC mode).

The story was designed using Adobe Flash (10), which enabled all of the students to watch the animationwhile listening to the narrationof the story. The participants could replay, rewind, pause, and resume the story independently. Moreover, the AC students could read thecaptions presented with the animation, whereas the ACA students could read the captions and consult the story keyword annotations. Toensure authenticity, the study took place in a language lab setting that contained 26 computers equipped with headphones, comfortableseats, and a data projector.

3.3. Instruments

The administered tests were evaluated for content and face validity by language testing experts: an American associate professorand two non-native speakers who are professors of applied linguistics. The experts verified that the test items: (a) were congruentwith the tests’ objectives, (b) had rubrics that were clear to all students, (c) contained balanced questions (i.e., not biased toward any

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–7564

group), (d) adequately covered the content, (e) had a clear system of scoring, and (f) were appropriately formatted. The tests were asfollows.

3.3.1. Vocabulary recognition test (VRT)The VRT was administered via a computer so that the students would be able to read the questions on the screen, answer them, and

automatically obtain their scores after completing the test. This test consisted of 15 multiple-choice questions: (a) five image identificationquestions in which the students saw an image and chose its name in the target language and (b) 10 synonym items. Every correct answerreceived 1 point for a total of 15 possible points (see Appendix B). The VRTwas administered before the treatment (i.e., pretest), immediatelyafter the treatment (i.e., post-test), and four weeks after the treatment (i.e., delayed test). To test the internal consistency of the VRT’sindividual items and how closely they related as a group, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was employed. The alpha coefficient forthe 15 items was .71, suggesting that the items were relatively internally consistent.

3.3.2. Vocabulary production test (VPT)The VPT, administered via pen and paper, examined the same 15 target words, but the students wrote their translation in Arabic.4 Similar

to the VRT, the VPT was administered before the treatment, immediately after the treatment, and four weeks after the treatment (seeAppendix C). The internal consistency of the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .75, indicating the internal consistency of the VPTitems.

The students did not have prior knowledge of the target words, the average scoring was 3 out of 15 for both the VRT and the VPT pretests(M ¼ .96; SD ¼ .85).

3.3.3. Listening comprehension test (LCT)The LCT was a five-itemmultiple-choice test. The students were requested to choose the correct answer from four choices, one of which

was the correct answer, the other three being distracters taken from the context; all of the answers werewritten in L2 English (see AppendixD). The five comprehension items aimed to test the learners’ understanding of the main incidents of the story and whether the on-screenannotations or the captions helped them to comprehend the story. The LCT was administered via computer to all groups both immediatelyafter the treatment and at a later point in time. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .70, which suggested that the LCT items wereclosely related to each other.

3.3.4. Listening recall test (LRT)The students were also asked to write a summary of the story in Arabic.5 In this test, the students obtained 1 point for a partially correct

answer and 2 points for a fully correct answer (see Appendix E). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .74, revealing the internalconsistency of the LRT items.

3.4. Design

The study employed a between-subjects design inwhich participant groups viewed an animation under one of three modes: ACA, AC, orA. The groups were asked to play the animation and then complete the vocabulary and listening tests. In other words, the independentvariable was the L2 learning mode, which consisted of three modes (i.e., ACA, AC, and A). The dependent variables (new vocabularyacquisition and listening skills development) were measured by vocabulary and listening tests over time. Vocabulary recognition andproduction were measured prior to the intervention (i.e., pretest), immediately after the intervention (i.e., posttest), and at a delayed timepoint (i.e., delayed test). Listening comprehension and recall weremeasured immediately after intervention (i.e., posttest) and at four weeksafter the intervention (i.e., delayed test). While listening comprehension and recall were measured immediately after intervention (i.e.,posttest) and at four weeks after the intervention (i.e. delayed test).

3.5. Procedures

The students’ instructors first administered the vocabulary recognition pretest via computer and the vocabulary production pretest viapen and paper two days prior to the treatments. The students sat in front of the computer screen in a multimedia language lab, and theinstructors instructed them on how to play the story, while the ACA group received extra instruction in an annotation consultation. Theinstructors played the story first to all students through the computer data show for 10 min. The students then played the video themselvesand completed their task over a 20-min period. The ACA group students could watch the animation, hear the narration, read the captions,and consult the annotations. The AC group students could watch the animation, hear the narration, and read the captions. Finally, the Agroup mode students could only watch the animation and hear the narration.

After viewing the animation, the students first accessed the five computerized multiple-choice listening comprehension tests and thenwent directly to the 15 multiple-choice questions for the vocabulary recognition test. After completing both tests, the computer displayedtheir test scores, which the students were able to print. Then, the students completed a pen and paper vocabulary production test for thesame target words and wrote a protocol summary in Arabic. Four weeks after the treatment, the instructors administered delayedcomputerized vocabulary recognition and listening comprehension tests as well as pen and paper vocabulary production and listening recalltests. These tests were identical to the tests that were administered immediately after the treatment.

4 This method has been applied successfully in relevant studies, (e.g., Yoshii, 2006; Yoshii & Flaitz, 2002) which used vocabulary production tests in the students’ mothertongue.

5 This request is consistent with the studies by Chun and Plass (1996) and Jones and Plass (2002), in which students were asked to write a protocol summary of the text intheir mother tongue.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 65

All of the groups spent an equal amount of time in task engagement; even the ACA group that had extra strategy (i.e., annotations) wasable to complete the task in a reasonable time and did not request extra time to consult the annotations. The story was five minutes and tenseconds long in all scenarios, and the average time spent in consulting the annotations by the ACA group was 135 s. Almost all of thestudents consulted the annotations and read the captions; their instructor observed their engagement in the task, and those students whoappeared to not be fully participating in the task were excluded from the study sample.

4. Results

Prior to conducting the statistical tests, homogeneity of variance was assessed via Levene’s Test. The listening comprehension and vo-cabulary recognition scores violated homogeneity of variance.

a. Vocabulary Recognition: Posttest, p ¼ .000; Delayed, p ¼ .019b. Vocabulary Production: Posttest, p ¼ .009; Delayed, p ¼ .146c. Listening Comprehension: Posttest, p ¼ .003; Delayed, p ¼ .009d. Listening Recall: Posttest, p ¼ .029; Delayed, p ¼ .215

Following Judd andMcClelland (1994), when the homogeneity of variancewas violated, the dependent variables were transformed usinga natural log function. The transformed variables were then used in the mixed ANOVA procedure. To facilitate the interpretation of results,however, the means and standard deviations of the original listening comprehension and vocabulary recognition scores were reported. Theadjustment for unequal variance has to be made when F-values are low. Because F-values were high in this study, the findings would still besignificant even if some adjustments were made.

4.1. Vocabulary recognition

A 3� 3 mixed ANOVA procedure [Mode (ACA, AC, A)� Test (pretest, posttest, delayed test)] was conducted to determine whether the L2learning mode affected vocabulary recognition over time.

4.1.1. Effects of annotations on vocabulary recognitionThe descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1, while the mixed ANOVA results are summarized in Table 2. The findings reveal that the L2

learningmode significantly affected vocabulary recognition over time (F (4, 94)¼ 7.27, p¼ .002, h2¼ .24). The change from the pretest to thedelayed test differed across groups (F (2, 47) ¼ 12.07, p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .34). Post-hoc single degree of freedom tests were conducted todetermine which groups were contributing to the significant interaction. Because a total of six interactions had to be tested, a Bonferronicorrection was used to adjust for Type 1 error. Accordingly, all single degree of freedom results were assessed at an alpha of .008 (i.e., .05/6¼ .008). The post-hoc single degree of freedom tests indicate that the improvement of scores from the pretest to the posttest to the delayedtest was steeper for the ACA group than it was for the AC and A groups (F (1, 47) ¼ 30.714, p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .39). This differential improvementacross groups is depicted in Fig. 3. The results, as indicated in Table 2 and Fig. 3, show significant differences for the annotation strategy tofacilitate L2 vocabulary recognition over a short and a long-term.

Table 1Descriptive statistics for vocabulary recognition across time.

Mode N Pretest Posttest Delayed test

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ACA 20 1.00 .19 9.65 .47 7.30 .28AC 20 1.05 .19 6.70 .47 4.55 .28A 10 .90 .27 4.20 .66 3.30 .39

Table 2Mixed ANOVA results for vocabulary recognition across time as a function of mode (N ¼ 50).

Source Df MS F Sig. h2

Between subjectsMode 2 1.45 41.48 .000 .64Error 47 .04

Within subjectsLinear 1 11.38 384.52 .000 .89Linear � mode 2 .36 12.07 .000 .34Error 47 .03Quadratic 1 8.94 222.83 .000 .83Quadratic � mode 2 .15 3.73 .031 .14Error 47 .04

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pretest Posttest Delayed Test

Mea

n V

ocab

ular

y R

ecog

niti

on S

core

Time of Test

ACA

AC

A

Fig. 3. The linear trend of vocabulary recognition as a function of learning mode.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–7566

4.1.2. The best mode for vocabulary recognitionThe findings of the mixed ANOVA reveal that the vocabulary recognition scores varied significantly across groups (F (2, 47) ¼ 41.78,

p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .64) (see Table 2 and Fig. 4). Post-hoc Tukey procedures indicate that the students in the ACA mode had significantly highervocabulary recognition scores (M ¼ 5.98, SE ¼ .19) than the students in the AC mode (M ¼ 4.10, SE ¼ .19; p ¼ .000) and the students in the Amode (M¼ 2.73, SE¼ .27; p¼ .000). In addition, the students in the ACmode had significantly higher vocabulary recognition scores than thestudents in the Amode (p¼ .000). This pattern of findings indicates that the annotations and captions were the best methods for improvingL2 vocabulary recognition over time. The annotations, however, significantly outperformed the captions in the vocabulary recognition gains.Animation alone demonstrated non-significant differences for aiding L2 vocabulary acquisition because it did not contained text help in theform of captions or annotations.

Mea

n V

ocab

ular

y R

ecog

niti

on S

core

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

ACA

Mod

AC

de of Learning

A

g

Fig. 4. Mean vocabulary recognition scores across learning modes.

4.2. Vocabulary production

A 3� 3mixed ANOVA procedure [Mode (ACA, AC, A)� Test (pre-test, posttest, delayed test)] was conducted to determine whether modeof L2 learning affected vocabulary production over time.

4.2.1. Effects of annotations on vocabulary productionThe descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3, while the results of a mixed ANOVA are presented in Table 4. The results of the mixed

ANOVA indicate that the mode of L2 learning significantly affected vocabulary production across time (F (3, 70) ¼ 7.21, p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .24).The change from the pretest to the delayed test (i.e., the linear trend) differed across groups (F (2, 47) ¼ 17.08, p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .42). Post-hocsingle degree of freedom tests were conducted to determinewhich groups were contributing to the significant interaction. Because a total ofsix interactions had to be tested, a Bonferroni correctionwas used to adjust for Type 1 error. Accordingly, all single degree of freedom resultswere assessed at an alpha of .008 (i.e., .05/6¼ .008). The post-hoc single tests indicate that the improvement in scores from the pretest to the

Table 3Descriptive statistics for vocabulary production across time.

Mode N Pretest Posttest Delayed test

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

ACA 20 1.15 .19 10.95 .63 9.10 .39AC 20 1.15 .19 7.20 .63 6.95 .39A 10 .90 .26 6.70 .90 4.20 .55

Table 4Mixed ANOVA results for vocabulary production across time as a function of mode (N ¼ 50).

Source df MS F Sig. h2

Between subjectsMode 2 113.49 34.86 .000 .60Error 47 3.26

Within subjectsLinear 1 726.76 334.47 .000 .88Linear � mode 2 37.12 17.08 .000 .42Error 47 2.17Quadratic 1 574.22 90.73 .000 .66Quadratic � mode 2 24.16 3.82 .029 .14Error 47 6.33

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 67

posttest to the delayed test was steeper for the ACA group than it was for the AC and A groups (F (1, 47) ¼ 20.85, p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .30). Thisdifferential improvement across groups is depicted in Fig. 5. Thus, the descriptive statistics as shown in Table 3 and Fig. 5 indicate that theannotations have a significant primary effect on vocabulary production compared to captions and animation, and that captions, in turn, havea significant effect compared to the animation mode over time.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pretest Posttest Delayed Test

Mea

n V

ocab

ular

y P

rodu

ctio

n Sc

ore

Time of Test

ACA

AC

A

Fig. 5. The linear trend of vocabulary production (ACA vs. AC and A).

4.2.2. The best mode for vocabulary productionThe findings reveal that the vocabulary production scores varied significantly across groups (F (2, 47) ¼ 34.86, p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .60) (see

Table 4 and Fig. 6). Post-hoc Tukey procedures indicate that students in the ACAmode had significantly higher vocabulary production scores(M ¼ 7.07, SE ¼ .23) than the students in the AC mode (M ¼ 5.10, SE ¼ .23; p ¼ .000) and the students in the A mode (M ¼ 3.93, SE ¼ .33;p ¼ .000). In addition, the students in the AC mode had significantly higher vocabulary production scores than the students in the A mode(p ¼ .016). Thus, the ACA mode was the best mode for vocabulary production over time.

Mea

n V

ocab

ular

y P

rodu

ctio

n

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A

Scor

e

ACA

Mo

AC

ode of Learnin

A

ng

Fig. 6. Mean vocabulary production scores across learning modes.

In sum, the on-screen text mode (i.e., annotations and captions) demonstrated positive effects on improving L2 vocabulary acquisitionover the short and the long term. Furthermore, the annotations significantly outscored the captions in the L2 vocabulary acquisitionposttests. The animation mode, however, revealed no significant difference in aiding L2 vocabulary learning over time because it containedno text help.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–7568

4.3. Listening comprehension

A 3� 2mixed ANOVA procedure [Mode (ACA, AC, A)� Test (posttest, delayed test)] was conducted to determinewhether the L2 learningmode affected listening comprehension over time.

4.3.1. Effects of annotations on listening comprehensionThe findings in Table 5 and Table 6 indicate that the use of annotations did not significantly affect listening comprehension over time (F

(2, 47) ¼ .28, p ¼ .755, h2 ¼ .01). The descriptive statistics shown in Table 5 reveal that the ACA mode obtained the lowest means (6.65 and4.15 for the posttest and the delayed test, respectively), revealing no significant difference from annotations for facilitating L2 listeningcomprehension over time. Likewise, the AC mode did not reveal significant a difference for improving L2 listening.

Table 5Descriptive statistics for listening comprehension across time as a function of mode.

Mode N Posttest Delayed test

Mean SE Mean SE

ACA 20 6.65 .53 4.15 .26AC 20 6.70 .53 4.15 .26A 10 8.60 .75 7.90 .36

Note. Normality and equality of variance were not met so variables were transformed. The descriptive statistics, however, are presented in the original metric to facilitateinterpretation.

Table 6Mixed ANOVA results for listening comprehension across time as a function of mode (N ¼ 50).

Source df MS F Sig. h2

Between subjectsMode 2 2.84 12.31 .000 .34Error 47 .23

Within subjectsTime 1 6.08 27.72 .000 .37Time � mode 2 .06 .28 .755 .01Error 47 .22

Note. Transformed variables were used in the 3 � 2 ANOVA.

4.3.2. The best mode for listening comprehensionThe findings in Table 6 and Fig. 7 reveal that the listening comprehension scores varied significantly across groups (F (2, 47) ¼ 12.31,

p ¼ .000, h2 ¼ .34). The post-hoc Tukey procedures reveal that the students in the A mode had significantly higher listening comprehensionscores (M¼ 8.25, SE¼ .41) than the students in the ACAmode (M¼ 5.40, SE¼ .29; p¼ .000) or the students in the ACmode (M¼ 5.43, SE¼ .29;p ¼ .000). Thus, the animation without text was the best method for listening comprehension and annotations and captions were found.

Mea

n L

iste

ning

Com

preh

ensi

on

0123456789

A

Scor

e

ACA

Mo

AC

ode of Learnin

A

ng

Fig. 7. Mean listening comprehension scores across learning modes.

4.4. Listening recall

A 3� 2mixed ANOVA procedure [Mode (ACA, AC, A)� Test (posttest, delayed test)] was conducted to determinewhether the L2 learningmode affected listening recall over time.

4.4.1. The effects of annotations on listening recallThe findings in Table 7 and Table 8 indicate that use of annotations did not significantly affect listening production across time (F (2,

47) ¼ .53, p ¼ .592, h2 ¼ .02).

Table 8Mixed ANOVA results for listening recall across time as a function of mode (N ¼ 50).

Source Df MS F Sig. h2

Between subjectsMode 2 7.19 4.91 .012 .17Error 47 1.47

Within subjectsTime 1 41.01 35.77 .000 .43Time � mode 2 .61 .53 .592 .02Error 47 1.15

Table 7Descriptive statistics for listening recall across time.

Mode N Posttest Delayed test

Mean SE Mean SE

ACA 20 3.30 .29 1.70 .21AC 20 3.35 .29 1.90 .21A 10 4.00 .41 3.00 .30

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 69

4.4.2. The best mode for listening recallThe findings in Table 8 and Fig. 8 reveal that the listening recall scores varied significantly across groups (F (2, 47) ¼ 4.91, p ¼ .012,

h2 ¼ .17). Post-hoc Tukey procedures reveal that students in the A group had significantly higher listening recall scores (M ¼ 3.50, SE ¼ .27)than students in the ACA group (M¼ 2.50, SE¼ .19; p¼ .011) or students in the AC group (M¼ 2.63, SE¼ .19; p¼ .030). Therefore, the Amodewas the best method for listening recall.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Mea

n L

iste

ning

Pro

duct

ion

Scor

e

ACA AC

Mode of LLearning

A

Fig. 8. Mean listening recall scores across learning modes.

To conclude, the A mode was the best method for improving listening comprehension and recall, as indicated by Table 8 and Fig. 8. Themeans of the posttests and delayed tests demonstrated the significant differences in improving listening skills over time. In contrast, the on-screen text modes (i.e., annotations and captions) were not significant for listening comprehension and recall.

5. Discussion

The results of this study expand upon the previous research on the effects of annotations on L2 vocabulary learning (Al-Seghayer, 2001;Chun & Plass, 1996; Jones & Plass, 2002; Plass et al. 1998, 2003; Yoshii, 2006). This study demonstrates the positive effects of annotationscreated in conjunction with animated captions for learning L2 vocabulary over the short- and long-term. Therefore, the study results alignwith Paivio’s (1971, 1986) dual coding theory, which assumes that information is coded dually in the human mind either verbally (i.e., textand sounds) or non-verbally (i.e., picture and objects). These two systems are interconnected when words are represented by one systemand can be activated by the other system or vice-versa (e.g., verbal activated by non-verbal). In this study, students learned vocabulary betterthrough the ACA and AC modes because visual information (animation) was coded with verbal information (annotations þ captions) whilethe students learning with only animation mode performed worse on the vocabulary tests, as information was only presented through thevisual mode.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–7570

The results of vocabulary learning in this study also support Mayer’s (1997, 2001) generative theory of multimedia learning, whichassumes that learners must select verbal and visual linguistic items, organize the verbal and visual cues into verbal and visual modes, buildconnections between the two types of systems, and integrate information with prior knowledge in the working memory. Correspondingly,the study participants learned a considerable amount of vocabulary through annotations because they could select a word and identify itsvisual and verbal codes, then organize its visual and verbal representations in their minds, and then integrate the information in long-termmemory. Therefore, the vocabulary learning results demonstrate the superiority of annotated captioned animation over captioned ani-mation or animation alone. Another plausible explanation for the efficacy of annotations is the concurrent presentations of the variousmodes. This result demonstrates Mayer’s (2003) multimedia effects principle, which argues that multiple presentations are more useful forlearning words than single presentations because students are able to construct two different mental representations (i.e., verbal and visualmodes) and build connections between them.

Conversely, the use of annotations did not produce significant differences for L2 listening comprehension or recall over the short-and long-term. This finding contradicts Jones and Plass (2002), who found significant differences in comprehending an aural multi-media passage in annotated versus non-annotated materials. The contradictory results could be attributed to the type of input used forthe L2 participants, as Jones and Plass restricted their participants to aural multimedia input with several pictorial presentations toexplain the annotations. Therefore, their pictorial modes were presented as fragments to refer to the meaning of the target words(Mohsen & Balakumar, 2011). However, this study exposed the students to audiovisual material that highlighted the keywords throughannotations, and these annotations were given within the context that was being taught to the students. This method is different fromthat in Jones and Plass (2002) because the animations in this study were presented in different contexts and the participants were ableto access the annotations while they were watching the animations. If the participants focused on the annotations while they wereviewing the animation and stopped listening to the audio, they would naturally perform worse on the listening recognition and recalltests. This conclusion is consistent with Bird and Williams’s arguments (2002), who observed that L2 vocabulary development gainedin studies using subtitles or captions was due to good reading and not better listening comprehension. Birds and Williams pointed outthat learners tended to ignore the auditory inputs while focusing on captions as they might believe that auditory inputs hindered theircomprehension.

In addition, the negative effect of annotations on listening comprehension might be attributable to the split in the students’ attentionbetween textual, visual, and auditory input. According to Mayer andMoreno (2003), when learners were exposed to several modes of visualinformation concurrently, their minds were only capable of processing some of the information. Similarly, Mayer, Heiser, and Lonn (2001)found that animationwith audio leads to greater retention than animationwith audio and captions. Another reason for the negative effect ofannotations and captions on listening comprehension and recall could also be due to the high cognitive load imposed by the salience of thetarget words (Koning, Tabbaras, Rikers, & Paas, 2011; Spanjers,Wouters, Cog, &Merrienboer, 2011). In this regard, Linebarger, Piotrowski andGreenwood (2010) pointed out that presenting content via two modalities (i.e., aural and visual) helped students comprehend the contentwhile adding a thirdmode (i.e., print) might overwhelm the children’s cognitive capacities, resulting in comprehension decrements. In otherwords, learners were distracted from relevant information by redundant details or salient elements such as annotations or captions(Amadieu, Mariné, & Laimay, 2011).

This study’s findings demonstrate the significant benefits of using the captioned animation mode to aid L2 vocabulary acquisition.This findings is consistent with previous research that showed that captions presented with video could facilitate L2 vocabularyacquisition (Baltova, 1999; Garza, 1991; Stewart & Pertusa, 2004; Sydorenko, 2010). However, the results of this study contradict otherresearch studies that revealed significant differences in the use of captioning in facilitating L2 listening comprehension (Huang &Eskey, 1999–2000; Markham et al., 2001). It may be that the ACA students focused most of their attention on memorizing new wordsbecause they had an extra strategy, annotation, and thus did not have enough cognitive resources available to also remember the storyitself.

The positive impact of captions in these studies was not clear. In other words, the degree to which L2 learners gained listeningcomprehension through exposure to video versus exposure to captions along with video was not delineated. The captions might haveimproving reading comprehension rather than listening comprehension. The results of the present study do, however, coincide with thefindings of Sydorenko (2010), who found that L2 students gained little benefit from captioned video segments presented to improvelistening comprehension versus video alone.

The results of this study show that animation, on its own, facilitates listening comprehension and recall over time. The participants whowere involved in listening tasks that involved only animation performed much better on the tests than those in the ACA and AC groups.Because the participants were not distracted by the extra text, they had to attend to the video plus audio modes to comprehend the story.The significance of animation alone in aiding listening skills is consistent with Sydorenko’s (2010) conclusions. Sydorenko demonstrated asignificant difference between the video plus audio (VA), video plus caption (VC), and video plus audio plus caption (VAC) modes in terms offacilitating L2 listening comprehension. In addition, the findings of this study in terms of listening skill scores support the cognitive loadtheory: When two inputs support the same information (i.e., when a written word and a picture are related to the same concept), theypotentially create a cognitive load, making more difficult to process the information. The A group in this study received no additionalcognitive load beyond the animation or visual stimuli, whereas the other groups received additional stimuli that might have impeded thelearning of the L2 story (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).

5.1. Conclusion

This study explored the efficacy of learning with animation to enhance vocabulary development and listening comprehension. Whileanimation complemented by annotations or captions was found to aid vocabulary acquisition over time, pure animation was found tofacilitate listening comprehension and recall. The participants learned vocabulary better when they consulted annotations plus captionsthan when they accessed only captions without annotations. However, animation alone appeared to facilitate listening skills over time,whereas annotations and captions did not significantly reinforce listening skills over time.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 71

5.2. Pedagogical implications

This study has generated several pedagogical implications for foreign language teachers. While animations presented with both captionsand annotations facilitate vocabulary acquisition, they do not aid in listening comprehension or recall in L2 audiovisual presentations.Therefore, it is recommended that teachers present annotations inmultimedia texts whose intent is vocabulary acquisition. The students areunable to follow the audio portion of a presentation while engaged in consulting annotations, particularly with a single presentation of thevideo. The teachers are thus advised to provide the students with an opportunity to check the annotations presented in the captioned videoor animation prior to viewing the video so that the students may watch the video without interruption during subsequent viewings whenlistening comprehension is the goal of the lesson.

The teachers should make the annotations salient in a text to help the learners consult the meaning of the target words. Moreover, theteachers should keep the explanation of words to a minimum using illustrated meanings with examples. Choosing images to depict themeaning of words is a crucial matter; teachers should avoid selecting images that do not accurately depict the meaning of the target words,particularly for abstract words.

The researchers recommend using video or animation alone for listening comprehension classes to enhance the students’ autonomy indecoding L2 auditorymaterial instead of relying on the text that accompanies a video or animation. L2 teachers may use captions or subtitlesto help the students visualize the text, especially if the participants are beginners, but not to such an extent that the students come to rely onthe text. The teachers are then advised to gradually train their students to comprehend aural or visual listening tasks without presentingcaptions or subtitles in the listening tasks.

5.3. Limitations and suggestions for future studies

There were several limitations to the current study. First, the participants in this study were EFL beginners, and only a small portion oftheir course was devoted to listening activities. Thus, this study’s findings may not be applicable in classes that include students with higherlevels of comprehension and experiencewith L2 speech. Therefore, it would be beneficial to examine the different levels of learners to checkthe efficacy of animation modes on vocabulary acquisition and listening skills. Second, this study did not investigate how the L2 learnersprocess the different video presentations. The study did not investigate the strategies used by the participants in processing the multimediapresentations. Hence, there is a need for future studies that focus on this area. Third, the use of assessment tools for listening recall raisesanother issue. In this study, the participants wrote their recall tests in their native language and offered translations in their mother tonguebecause it would have been difficult for them to do so in English as L2 beginners. Advanced learners might be able to pick out the words inEnglish and write the protocol summary in the target language.

Moreover, the story used in this study was somewhat lengthy (610 words). Though it was evaluated by linguists and recommended foruse, future researchers should consider employing a shorter text to facilitate comprehension. Furthermore, selected stories should beappropriate to the culture of the learners. The annotations used to explain the meanings of the target words were limited to textual andpictorial annotations. Consequently, researchers are advised to carefully select video annotations to explain the target words.

Appendix A. The Story’s Script

An egg was rolling on the ground. It rolled through the trees. It rolled across the meadow. It rolled all the way down the hill. Finally, itrolled right into duck’s nest. Mother Duck didn’t notice. (She was reading.) Soon enough, the eggs began to crack. The first duckling tohatch had.. blue spots. Mother Duck called him Crayon. The second duckling had brown stripes. “Zebra”, Mother Duck decided. Thethird duckling was yellow, and Mother Duck named him Moonlight. A rather odd-duckling hatched from the fourth egg “Guji, Guji,” hesaid, and that became his name. Mother Duck taught her four ducklings how to swim how to dive and how to waddle. Guji Guji alwayslearned more quickly than the others. He was bigger and stronger, too. But no matter how..quick they were, or what they looked like,Mother Duck loved all her ducklings the same. Then one terrible day, three crocodiles came out of the lake. They looked a lot like GujiGuji. The crocodiles were.smiling, and when they laughed with their mouths wide open, the whole world could see their big, pointedteeth. The three crocodiles saw Guji Guji and smiled some more. “Look at that ridiculous crocodile. He’s walking like a duck!”. Guji Gujiheard them. “I am not walking like a duck. I am a duck!” he explained. The crocodiles laughed. “Look at yourself! No feathers, no beak, nobig webbed feet!” “What you have is blue-gray skin, sharp claws, pointed teeth and the smell of bad crocodile. You’re just like us.” Thefirst crocodile said, “Your blue-gray body lets you hide under water without being seen so you can get close to fat, delicious ducks.” Thesecond crocodile said, “Big, sharp claws help you hold fat, delicious ducks tightly so they don’t get away.” The third crocodiles said,“Pointed teeth are necessary so you can chew fat, delicious ducks, Mmmmm, Yum.” The three crocodiles grinned. “We know you livewith the ducks. Take them to the bridge tomorrow and practice diving. We’ll wait underneath with our mouths wide open.” “Why would Ido that” Guji Guji asked, “Why should I listen to you”. “Because we are all crocodiles, and crocodiles help each other.” The bad crocodilesgrinned again and vanished into the grass.

Guji Guji felt terrible. He sat by the lake to think. “Is it true? Am I a bad crocodile too?” He looked down into the lake and made a fierceface. Guji Guji laughed. He looked ridiculous. “I’m not a bad crocodile. Of course, I’m not exactly a duck either.” “But the three crocodiles arenasty, and they want to eat my family. I must think of a way to stop them.”

Guji Guji thought and thought until finally he thought up a good idea. He went home happy and content. That night, the three badcrocodiles sharpened their pointed teeth, all the while thinking of fat, delicious ducks. They were ready for their feast. The next day, GujiGuji did as he’d been told. he took the flocks of ducks to the bridge to practice diving. The three bad crocodiles were waiting for theducks underneath the bridge. It wasn’t fat, delicious ducks that dropped from the bridge though; it was three big, hard rocks! Thecrocodiles bit down. “Crack! Crack! Crack!” went their pointed teeth. The three crocodiles ran as fast as they could. In barely a minute,they were nowhere to be seen! Guji Guji had saved the ducks! Guji Guji was the duck hero of the day! That night, all the ducks dancedand celebrated. Guji Guji continued to live with Mother Duck, Crayon, Zebra, and Moonlight and every day he became stronger andhappier “crocoduck”.

1-rolling:

a-going down ( )

b-going up ( )

c-going straight ( )

d-turning right ( )

2-What does this picture mean?

a-duck ( )

b- hen ( )

c-pigeon ( )

d-parrot ( )

3-nest

a-shelter ( )

b-drink ( )

c-food ( )

d-eggs ( )

4-What does this picture stand for?

a- feather ( )

b-hatch ( )

c-lake ( )

d-claw ( )

5-dive

a-dance ( )

b-swim ( )

c-sing ( )

d-jump ( )

6- What is the bird doing in the picture?

a-walking ( )

b-dancing ( )

c-diving ( )

d-waddling ( )

7-crocodile

a-a bird ( )

b-an insect ( )

c-a reptile ( )

d-a plant ( )

8- feather

a-nail ( )

b-hair ( )

c-tail ( )

d-skin ( )

9-lake

a-river ( )

b-sea ( )

d-ocean ( )

d-water in the land ( )

10- nasty

a-pleasant smell ( )

b-unpleasant smell ( )

c-strong smell ( )

d-normal smell ( )

11- fierce

a-bad ( )

b-angry ( )

c-happy ( )

d-sad ( )

12- meadow

a- hill ( )

b- mountain ( )

c- grass ( )

d- forest ( )

13- What does this picture stand for?

a-beaks ( )

b- feathers ( )

c- claws ( )

d- stripes ( )

14- vanished

a-arrived ( )

b-died ( )

c-disappeared ( )

e-jumped ( )

15- What does this picture refer to?

a- feather ( )

b- beak ( )

c- claw ( )

d- nail ( )

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–7572

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 73

Note: target words are bolded.

Appendix B. Vocabulary recognition test

( ) vanish .........................................................................................................

( ) beak .........................................................................................................

( ) roll .........................................................................................................

( ) dive .........................................................................................................

( ) feather .........................................................................................................

( ) Hatch .........................................................................................................

( ) duck .........................................................................................................

( ) crocodile .........................................................................................................

( ) nest .........................................................................................................

( ) waddle .........................................................................................................

( ) meadow .........................................................................................................

( ) lake .........................................................................................................

( ) claw .........................................................................................................

( ) fierce .........................................................................................................

( ) nasty .........................................................................................................

Match the following words with their correct meaning. Tick the mark (O) in the box.

Appendix C. Vocabulary production test

Please check the words that you know by ticking the mark (O). If you know them, write their meanings in the blanks either, in your ownnative language or in English.

Appendix D. Listening test

Read the questions below and choose the correct answer.

1. Why did Guji Guji learn better than the other ducklings?a. because his mother taught him more.b. because he was smarter than the other ducklings.c. because he had an extra ability to swim and dive.d. because he was bigger and stronger than the other ducklings.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–7574

2. What do you think Guji Guji is?a. a ducklingb. a crocodilec. a sharkd. a different creature

3. Why did Guji Guji make a fierce face at the lake?a. He wanted to think of a good idea.b. He wanted to see if he really was a crocodile.c. He wanted to swim in the lake.d. He wanted to see whether he had stripes.

4. Why did crocodiles laugh at Guji Guji?a. Because Guji Guji was a big duck.b. Because Guji Guji did not seem like a duckling.c. Because Guji Guji was smarter than the other ducklings.d. Because Guji Guji was stronger than the other ducklings.

5. How did Guji Guji save the other duck’s life?a. He damaged the pointed teeth of the crocodiles.b. He went away with the flock of ducks.c. He cracked the ducks’ eggs.

Write a summary of the story in your native language.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

d. He killed the ducks under the bridge.

Note: Correct answers are bolded and italicized.

Appendix E. Listening recall test

References

Akbulut, Y. (2007). Effects of multimedia annotations on incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of advanced learners of English as a foreign language.Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 35(6), 499–517.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotations modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: a comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202–232.Retrieved from. http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/alseghayer/.

Amadieu, F., Mariné, C., & Laimay, C. (2011). The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 36–40.Baltova, I. (1999). The effect of subtitled and staged video input on the learning and retention of content and vocabulary in a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Canada: University of Toronto.

A.S. Aldera, M.A. Mohsen / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 60–75 75

Bird, S. A., & Williams, J. N. (2002). The effect of bimodal input on implicit and explicit memory: an investigation into the benefits of within–language subtitling. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 23(4), 509–533.

Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between SLA theory and CALL. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753.Chun, D. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 reading. In L. Ducate, & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp.

69–98). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 183–198.Danan, M. (1992). Reversed subtitling and dual coding theory: new directions for foreign language instruction. Language Learning, 42(4), 497–527.Danan, M. (2004). Captioning and subtitling: undervalued language learning strategies. Meta, 49(1), 67–77.Garza, T. J. (1991). Evaluating the use of video materials in advanced foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 239–258.Grgurovi�c, M., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Help options and multimedia listening: students’ use of subtitles and the transcript. Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 45–66.

Retrieved from. http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/grgurovic/default.html.Guillory, H. G. (1998). The effects of key word captions to authentic French video in foreign language instruction. CALICO Journal, 15(1–3), 89–108.Huang, H.-C., & Eskey, D. (1999–2000). The effects of closed– television on the listening comprehension of intermediate English as a foreign language (ESL) students. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 28(1), 75–96.Jacobs, G. M., Dufon, P., & Fong, C. H. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2reading passages: their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge.

Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 19–28.Jones, L. (2003). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with multimedia annotations: the students’ voice. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 41–65.Jones, L. (2004). Testing L2 vocabulary recognition and recall using pictorial and written test items. Language Learning and Technology, 8(3), 122–143. Retrieved from. http://llt.

msu.edu/vol8num3/jones.Jones, L., & Plass, J. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in Frenchwithmultimedia annotations. TheModern Language Journal, 86(4), 546–561.Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1994). Data analysis: A model-comparison approach. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.Koning, B. B. de, Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2011). Attention cueing in an instructional animation: the role of presentation speed. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,

41–45.Linebarger, D., Piotrowski, J. T., & Greenwood, C. R. (2010). On-screen print: the role of captions as a supplemental literacy tool. Journal of Research in Reading., 33(23), 148–167.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01407.x.Markham, P. L., Peter, L. A., & McCarthy, T. J. (2001). The effects of native language vs. target language captions on foreign language students’ DVD video comprehension.

Foreign Language Annals, 34(5), 439–445.Mayer, R. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93, 187–198.Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.Mohsen, M., & Balakumar, M. (2011). A review of multimedia glosses and their effects on L2 vocabulary acquisition in CALL literature. ReCALL, 23(2), 135–159. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095834401100005X.Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Reprinted 1979, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second–language multimedia learning environment. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 90, 25–36.Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial

abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 221–243.Schulz, A. (1981). Literature and readability: bridging the gap in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 65(1), 43–53.Spanjers, I. A., Wouters, P., Cog, T. V., & Merriënboer, J. J. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked–out examples. Computers and

Human Behavior, 27, 46–52.Stewart, M. A., & Pertusa, I. (2004). Gains to language learners from viewing target language closed captioned films. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 438–447.Sydorenko, T. (2010). Modality of input and vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 50–73. Retrieved from. http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/sydorenko.pdf.Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 85–101. Retrieved from. http://llt.msu.edu/

vol10num3/yoshii/default.html.Yoshii, M., & Flaitz, J. (2002). Second language incidental vocabulary retention: the effect of picture and annotation types. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 33–58.