The Effects on Chinese Language Learning: A Comparison Study of Animation and Flashcards

Presentation

Juan YangUniversity of Warwick

Why Chinese language?

40 million

400 schools

Why Chinese language?

Chinese Characters

Flashcards

No dynamic graphics Process of changing is

not clear

Animationhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VhOCX5WLpw

helpful for reading and memorization (Narayanan and Hegarty, 2000; Mayer and Anderson, 1992; Li, 1996)

distract learners’ attention (Lowe, 2003; Schnotz et al, 1999)

no consensus, under-researched, adult learners

Research Questions

1. Is the use of computer animated characters more effective than use of flashcards for secondary children learning visual recognition of Chinese characters?

2. Is the use of computer animated characters more effective than use of flashcards for secondary children learning the meaning of Chinese characters?

3. Which presentation method did the secondary students believe was more useful to them in learning to recognise and remember the meaning of Chinese characters? views

Methods Quantitative: A within-subject repeated measure design

Qualitative: Questionnaire –seek opinions

Character List 1

• Watching Animations• Shape & Meaning Test • Survey 1

Character List 2

• Learning by Flashcards• Shape & Meaning Tests • Survey 2

12 pupils

Methods Participants

12 pupils

Beginning learners of Mandarin as FL

Year 9 in West MidlandsAverage age 13

English native speakersVolunteers

Selecting materials

Experiment

Survey

Procedure

Matching Character Lists

Character List 1

Character List 2

Match 2 lists

Specific and concrete meaning

Relatively low frequency

(A familiarity scale) Number of strokes < 7 Similar structure Matched by the same

part

Visual Presentations

5 Characters in List 1

• Watching Animations• Shape & Meaning Test • Survey 1

5 Characters in List 2

• Learning by Flashcards• Shape & Meaning Tests • Survey 2

12 pupils

Results

• Animation VS. Flashcard

Animation Flashcards0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55 Animation;

Recall test; 4.5Flashcards; Recall test;

3.42

Animation; Matching test;

5Flashcards;

Matching test; 4.6

Figure1 Posttest scores by treatments

Recall test

Matching test

A Paired-Sample t testAlpha level was set at .05

Recall test p=.02< .05

Matching test p= 1.0

A ceiling effect!

help recognition

help remember meaning

help understand meaning

feel bored

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

Pupils’ Views about Animation

yes neutral no

Link the image, meaning and characters together; Memorable

Not clear

help recognition

help remember meaning

help understand meaning

feel bored

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pupils’ Views about Flashcard

yes neutral no

Lack of comparison with images and characters

Interesting parts of two methodsStoryline

Repetition Stroke order

Similarity between images and characters

Animation

Link between pictures and characters

colorFlashcar

d

Discussion

In line with the cognitive load theory (Chandler,2004; Chandler & Sweller, 1991)

Limited short term memory Determined by how the info. is presented Animation : character formation process Flashcard: imagination is need

Discussion

L1 translations

The picture-matching test same pictures used in learning and test session,

test memory or concept? (reason for ceiling)

Character learning is a long-term programme 2 hours, 10 characters

Future studies

Large sample and more characters

The role of L1

Retention effects

The impact of narrations of animation

Thank you !Juan.Yang@warwick.ac.uk