Yavuz Akbulut

1. Foreign Language Readingthrough Hypermedia: Predictors of Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension Yavuz Akbulut Anadolu University, Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Eskişehir, Turkey yavuzakbulut@anadolu.edu.tr

2. Hypermedia Computer-based applications that provide information in a nonlinear way through multiple types of resources such as text, graphics, sound, video, and animation (Kommers et al., 1996). Notable numbers of software developed for language teaching, since hypermedia: • present input in multiple forms • provide more interaction • use authentic material more efficiently

3. Reading Glosses / Annotations • A glossary is defined as a list of words and phrases, and their meanings, which are judged to be outside the learner's current competence (Widdowson, 1984). Glossaries: • help learners to cope with text comprehension • sustain authenticity better than text simplification • increase; • flow of reading • independence from dictionaries • accuracy in finding meaning

4. Vocabulary Learning Vocabulary learning outcomes vary according to; • linguistic proficiency • individual learning styles • annotation type

5. Reading Comprehension Hypermedia facilitates reading comprehension Reading comprehension outcomes vary according to: • Foreign language reading proficiency • Prior knowledge on the subject domain • Topic interest • Learning styles

6. Research Questions • What are the predictors of vocabulary learning in a hypermedia environment for advanced language learners? • What are the predictors of reading comprehension in hypermedia environments for advanced language learners?

7. Methods & Procedures Dependent Variables • Vocabulary scores • Reading comprehension scores Independent Variables • Annotation type with three levels (i.e., definition, definition plus picture and definition plus video), reading ability, cognitive and perceptual learning styles, prior topical knowledge, topic interest. Participants • 69 freshman students studying at a TEFL department in a Turkish university, 47 female and 22 males. • They were randomly assigned to three pools and those three pools were randomly assigned to levels of the treatment.

8. Treatment: Hypermedia Reading Software • An authentic reading text was selected via a topic interest questionnaire.The text consisted of 1330 words • 42 words underlined as unknown by the pilot group were chosen as annotations. • Three forms of the very same text were prepared using a reading software designed by Ariew (1999). Each form has the same layout and had 9 pages with a linear organization: Form 1: Definition only Form 2: Definition and associated picture Form 3: Definition and associated video • A tracking tool built in the software was used to save every single interaction of the readers with the reading material.

9. Instruments (1/3) Vocabulary Test - Similar tests were used before (Knight, 1994; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003) - Consisted of three parts: Form recognition, meaning recognition and meaning production. - Two pilot studies were conducted to sustain ideal item facility, item discrimination and distractor efficiency indexes, to detect unknown distractors and to determine ideal timing. - Cronbach’s alpha= .76 in pre-test, .72 in post-test, .69 in delayed test - Interrater R= .94 in pre-test, .98 in post-test, .98 in delayed test

10. Instruments(2/3) Reading Comprehension Test - Test rubrics were prepared according to Alderson (2000), Bachman and Palmer (1996) and Urquhart and Weir (1998) - 12 multiple choice, 22 true-false questions - Proofread by an American colleague for unidiomatic language - Cronbach’s alpha: .79 (multiple-choice), .70 (true-false)

11. Instruments(3/3) • Nelson & Denny Reading Test (Brown et al.,1993) • Prior Knowledge Test • Consisted of a recall part and open-ended questions • Interrater reliability coefficients were.97 on the recall part and .96 on open-ended questions • Learning Style Questionnaire (Oxford, 1993) • Topic interest questionnaire (Schiefele & Krapp, 1996)

12. Procedures • Prior knowledge, topic interest and vocabulary pre-test - 2 weeks before the treatment • Nelson & Denny Reading Test - 11 days before the treatment • Treatment - given in a computer lab designed for simultaneous processing of 25 computers each connected to a local area network (LAN). - 3 sessions were arranged for 69 students, 23 in each. - Through a data projector, researchers oriented students with the material before each section. • Vocabulary Post-test and Reading Comprehension Test - Immediately after the treatment • Vocabulary Delayed Post-test - 3 weeks after the treatment

13. Data Analysis • Gained vocabulary scores were calculated • All variables were put into a bivariate correlation calculation in SPSS. • Variables that had high correlations with the outcome variables were put into a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. • Variables that had high correlations with each other were eliminated from the analysis and final regression analyses were conducted. • Assumptions of observation independence, linearity, multicollinearity, non-zero variance, normally distributed errors and uncorrelated residual term were sustained.

14. Results(1/3) • Immediate Post-test Scores • Predictors: • Language proficiency (r=.323, p<.007) • Prior topical knowledge (r=.355, p<.003) • Annotation type (dummy variable) * p < .05 , ** p<.01

15. Results(2/3) • Delayed Post-test Scores • Predictors: • Language proficiency (r=.319, p<.008) • Annotation type (dummy variable) * p < .05 , ** p<.01

16. Results(3/3) • Reading Comprehension • Predictors: • Reading ability (r=.386, p<.001) • SAS visual score (r=.248, p<.04) * p < .05 , ** p<.01

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

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

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