多媒體注釋於非刻意學習環境下對不同認知風格學生字彙學習之效益研究

Abstract

本文旨在探討，多媒體注釋型態對不同認知風格的學生之字彙學習的效益影響。同時，此研究也試圖探究，聲音檔的呈現能否增進學習者在字彙聽力測驗上的表現。另一個研究重點則在於檢視不同的注釋型態所導致的認知負荷量，以及，其與學生學習表現的相關性。 為了釐清多媒體注釋之效益是否會隨著學習者的認知風格而有所改變，受試者為來自北臺灣一所大學的九十位視覺導向學習者和八十四位語文導向學習者。研究者自一篇閱讀文章中選出十五個目標單字，輔以四種多媒體注釋：文字(純文字模式)、文字搭配圖片(圖片模式)、文字搭配聲音(聲音模式)、文字搭配圖片與聲音(綜合模式)。語文與視覺導向的受試者各自被隨機分派到其中任一組多媒體注釋。受試者於閱讀活動開始前一週進行字彙前測。閱讀活動後則進行字彙立即後測與兩週後的字彙延宕後測，包括了字義聽寫、單字拼寫、字義選擇。此外，本研究採用認知負荷量表來探究學習者在不同注釋模式下的認知負荷量。 研究資料採用二因子變異數方法進行分析，結果顯示，認知風格與注釋型態在立即的整體字彙學習與字義聽寫表現方面，皆有顯著的交互作用。相較於視覺導向學習者，語言導向學習者在純文字與聲音兩組中，所得到的分數較高；然而，在圖片組，視覺導向學習者的字彙學習則優於語文導向學習者。此外，就語文導向學習者而言，當使用圖片注釋模式時，其單字表現最差。而視覺導向學習者則是在純文字注釋模式下，得分最低。至於延宕字彙學習與字義聽寫測驗的結果，整體來說，語文導向學習者比視覺導向學習者能憶起較多的目標單字。四種不同呈現模式的多媒體注釋，對於字彙延宕學習的效益，並無任何顯著性的差異。最後，就認知負荷量而言，語文導向學習者的認知負荷量顯著低於視覺導向學習者，而不受到多媒體注釋呈現模式的影響。 基於本研究結果，關於多媒體注釋的使用可以歸納出以下結論：由於任何一種注釋型態對語文與視覺導向學習者的效益並不相同，選擇符合學生認知風格的呈現模式是很重要的。合併使用文字、圖片與聲音也許最能夠同時幫助語文與視覺導向學習者，因為他們可以自由地選擇自己喜愛的注釋型態來學習單字。This paper is intended to investigate the effects of multimedia annotation modes on vocabulary learning for students with different cognitive styles. It also attempts to find out whether audio input can help improve learners’ performance on a vocabulary listening test. Another focus of the study is to examine the amount of cognitive load induced by different annotation modes as well as its correlation with students’ learning results. To explore if the effectiveness of multimedia annotations varies according to learners’ styles, 90 visualizers and 84 verbalizers were recruited from a university in northern Taiwan. Fifteen target words were selected and embedded in a reading text, with each of them annotated in four annotation forms: (1) text alone (textual mode), (2) text and still pictures (pictorial mode), (3) text and audio information (audio mode), and (4) text, pictures and audio stimuli (mixed mode). Verbal and visual learners were randomly assigned to one of the four annotation types respectively. All participants finished the vocabulary pretest one week before the experiment. After reading, they took the immediate and two-week delayed posttests without prior notice, including a listening definition-supply test, a written form-recall test, and a written meaning-recognition test. A cognitive load measurement was also adopted to estimate learners’ cognitive load under different annotation treatments. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, revealing a significant interaction between cognitive style and annotation mode for immediate overall vocabulary gain and listening definition-supply test performance. Verbalizers scored higher than visualizers in the text-only and sound groups. On the other hand, visualizers acquired more words than verbalizers in the picture group. The respective comparisons within verbalizers and visualizers further showed that verbalizers performed worse with the pictorial mode than with other annotation types; whereas visualizers got the lowest scores when assigned to the textual mode. As for the delayed vocabulary learning and listening posttest results, verbalizers recalled more target words than visualizers on the whole. No difference was detected in the effects among the annotation conditions on vocabulary retention. Finally, the cognitive load of verbalizers was significantly less than that perceived by visualizers, regardless of annotation treatments. Based upon the findings, a conclusion can be drawn for the use of multimedia annotations. Since verbalizers and visualizers did not profit from a particular type of annotation to the same degree, it is important to choose the presentation modes that cater to their cognitive styles. A combined use of text, picture and sound may best support both verbal and visual learners because they are free to choose the annotations in their preferred forms to learn words.