Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: Learner autonomy and collaboration

Journal Pre-proof Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: Learner autonomy and collaboration Wen-Ta Tseng, Hao-Jyuan Liou, Hsi-Chin Chu

PII:

S0346-251X(17)31095-3

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102190

Reference:

SYS 102190

To appear in:

System

Received Date: 24 December 2017 Revised Date:

29 November 2019

Accepted Date: 2 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Tseng, W.-T., Liou, H.-J., Chu, H.-C., Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: Learner autonomy and collaboration, System (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.system.2019.102190. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Wen-Ta Tseng: Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, and Writing (Reviewing and Editing), Supervision Hao-Jyuan Liou: Project administration and Writing - Original Draft Hsi-Chin Chu: Methodology, Writing (Original Draft) and Writing (Reviewing and Editing)

Vocabulary Learning in Virtual Environments: Learner Autonomy and Collaboration

Wen-Ta Tsenga, Hao-Jyuan Lioub, Hsi-Chin Chub a

Department of Applied Foreign Languages, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

b

Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan

Corresponding Author: Hsi-Chin Chu Email: [email protected] TEL: 886-2-7734-1780 Postal Address: 162 Heping E. Road., Sec.1, Taipei 10610, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Declarations of Interest: none

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Vocabulary Learning in Virtual Environments: Learner Autonomy and Collaboration

Abstract Three-dimensional (3D) virtual environments provide EFL learners with a rich and dynamic multimodal context for vocabulary learning. This study aims to investigate the effects of implementing a 3D vocabulary learning program on EFL young learners’ vocabulary acquisition. Specifically, the interplay between two learning factors – learner autonomy and collaboration – were particularly investigated to examine the effects of the social-cultural dimension of such practice. A quasi-experimental research design was undertaken to examine the effects of 3D virtual environment mediation, learner autonomy, and pair-work cooperation on vocabulary learning. The findings supported the positive effect of virtual environments in facilitating vocabulary learning. In addition, individual and paired autonomous use, which dovetail with the design nature of the program instigated more profound retention of vocabulary than teacher-directed use. Importantly, pair-work was found to enhance longer retention than individual practice. It is suggested that successful vocabulary learning on a 3D program lies not only in the autonomous control of the learners per se but also in their active engagement with the artifacts as well as their close collaboration with partners. Keywords: Virtual environment, learner autonomy, collaboration, vocabulary

1. Introduction With advances in computer technology, the recent decade has witnessed a growth in resources and an increase in the availability of devices for language learning and teaching. Since the early 2000s, virtual environments (VEs) have represented one important aspect of technology that can be employed for designing language learning programs with the ability to simulate real worlds where users may explore and navigate at will and receive multimodal input via visual, textual, and acoustic media. These virtual worlds have evolved from simple simulations of social interactions to more complex environments as technology has developed. For instance, e-mail tandem 1

learning provides language learners with autonomy and text-based electronic forums for chatting (Warschauer, Turbee, & Roberts, 1996). Interactive video allows viewers to change scenes or points of view as they wish (Gardner & Garcia, 1996). Virtual worlds (VWs) and the various gaming applications which are popular today establish persistent VEs in which users role-play with avatars (Peterson, 2011). Most recently, virtual reality (VR) places viewers in VEs with innovative wearable devices which offer a first-person point of view (Garcia-Ruiz & Edwards, 2008). VWs are temporally persistent domains supported by powerful computer servers that allow users to enter and exit at will. Even after users exit these worlds, the VEs are still running and explorable for other users who remain or join later. Popular examples of VWs include Second Life, Active Worlds, and World of Warcraft (Peterson, 2011). These games are played on non-wearable computing devices and may also provide the third person omniscient point of view. VR entertainment software enhances the realism of VEs by working jointly with wearable devices that provide visual and acoustic sensory input. Such VR software primarily serves as a tool for social or gaming functions, although the space for language use may allow implicit and incidental learning (Sadler, 2012). In addition to the function of gaming, VWs can be utilized for language learning and other educational purposes. Language learning software has been able to incorporate key features of VWs (e.g., VEs or multimodal presentations) to create personalized tutorial programs which serve as contextual tools for explicit learning of language components such as vocabulary. Tutorial programs thus have features that optimize learning potential as learners assume a new role and study words that are networked in a thematic context. These programs are supported by 3D multimodal input for meaning and form that result in a vocabulary learning program which is embedded in a VE. Based on these characteristics of VWs, the first aim of the current work is to examine the extent to which a 3DVW vocabulary program may facilitate EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition. While virtual environment tutorials are presumed to assist language learning through the combination of rich contextualization provided by simulation and meaning-form enhancement via multimodal input, another putative advantage is the potential to promote learner autonomy and learner collaboration. The presentation of meaning is solely determined by learners’ choices when navigating the environment, thereby turning vocabulary study into a process of discovery, hence creating a learner-centered approach. Still, tutorial programs are sometimes incorporated by classroom teachers into their regular lessons as a teaching supplement. This might occur due to a tight schedule or a lack of facilities which could cause teachers to adopt a traditional, teacher-centered approach and execute tasks which are projected on a 2

screen for the whole class to follow. Teacher-centered and learner-centered approaches vary in terms of how much autonomous control students have over the learning process. Therefore, the second research aim is to understand whether a level of discrepancy in agency realization, that is, teacher-centered versus learner-centered approaches to the 3DVW vocabulary program, makes a significant difference regarding EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition. In addition, when navigating, collaboration with a partner may facilitate the search for meaning and enhance the accuracy of word meaning acquisition. Although socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1986) delineates that effective learning occurs in social milieu, it is still unknown whether adding a social factor to word learning via a VE tutorial program would yield a different learning effect than that yielded by individual work. Thus, the third issue investigated in this study is to understand whether peer collaboration featured by exercising collective agency is more effective than the individualistic mode of learning with the 3DVW vocabulary program

2. Literature Review 2.1. Multimedia models of learning and vocabulary acquisition Incorporating multimedia materials into second language vocabulary learning has been shown to be effective and has been recommended by many researchers (e.g., Tsai, 2004; Chang, 2006). Multimedia software has been found to enhance vocabulary learning because it may provide learners with textual, graphical and auditory input mediated by audio and pictorial flashcards, visual animations and even the 3DVWs (Wang, 2003; Lin, 2009). The positive impact of multimedia input on vocabulary acquisition can be explained by Dual Coding Theory (DCT) (Paivio, 1986), which illustrates text processing as the construction of two mental representations: the verbal system and the nonverbal system. If information is coded in both systems, the two types of information will reinforce each other through referential links (Paivio, 1986) yielding stronger retention and recall than when the information is coded in a single system. Moreover, the interrelation of visual, textual, and auditory input can provide a contextualized situation for vocabulary presentation and hence facilitates acquisition (Folse, 2006; Walters, 2006; Webb, 2008), even for learners with relatively low proficiency (Chang, 2006). DCT was further incorporated by Mayer (2001) into the Generative Theory of Multimedia Learning (GTML) to account for learning a second language. The theory separates the verbal system into two divisions, L1 and L2, which share a common, 3

imagery system. The contribution of the L2 system comes from the linking of the two verbal systems through translation, which enriches content learning (Paivio & Desrochers, 1980) and language acquisition (Mayer, 2001) via additional processing and storage. Hence, Hong (2010) suggests that the multimedia context can support language learning by boosting learner interest, motivating learners, fostering learning autonomy, shaping active and experiential learner styles and facilitating both technical and research skills. 2.2.Using a 3D virtual environment as a platform for language learning The key feature of VWs – the 3D virtual environment –has been shown to promote language learning in many ways. To begin with, the 3D environment simulating real or imagined situations for experiential learning of words promotes children’s ability to visualize, understand and construct their knowledge of words (Lin, 2010). Second, the new identity created via the avatar enhances the fun factor and reduces anxiety caused by making errors in actual social contexts, especially for EFL learners whose language ego is prone to affront (Jung, 2002). In addition, near-authentic practice can occur without strict time constraints associated with actual face-to-face communication (Jung, 2002; Chang & Ho, 2009) as learners navigate within a variety of scenarios at will. With these empowering functions put together in a 3D virtual environment, a higher level of learner autonomy and cognitive engagement than that attained in the traditional classroom may be generated. 2.3. Learner autonomy and computer-assisted language learning Learner autonomy has gained prominence in the realms of language teaching and learning for more than 3 decades (Holec, 1981). Holec theorized that learner autonomy is the ability to take charge of one's learning and to take responsibility for decisions including determining the objectives, defining the content and progression, selecting the methods and techniques to be used, monitoring the procedure of acquisition, and evaluating what has been acquired. In a similar vein, Benson (2013) specified the concept of control in three levels: control over learning management, control over cognitive processes, and control over learning content. Benson argues that through the three processes, learner autonomy can be developed by beginning with managing the planning, organization, and evaluation of learning at the first level; moving forward directing learners’ attention to linguistic input, reflecting upon their learning, and building metacognitive knowledge in the second stage; finally, being given the freedom to decide their goals and learning resources at the ultimate level. Clearly, learner autonomy is a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and 4

independent action (Little, 1991). Specifically, it presupposes and entails that the learner would develop a particular kind of psychological relation to the process and content of his or her learning. The capacity for autonomy could be observed not only in the way learners learn but also in the way they transfer the learning to wider contexts. (Little, 1991). Further, Little (2002) proposed a more holistic view of learner autonomy and indicated that the practice of learner autonomy requires insight, a positive attitude, and a readiness to be proactive in self-management and in interaction with others. Students have been found to prefer being in control of their learning process and they can feel more competent and motivated when they are empowered to make their own choices (Lepper, 1985; Cotterall, 1995). Furthermore, research also shows that the computer-assisted environment filled with interactions, resources, and individualizations can raise students’ linguistic awareness, support interaction and collaboration with peers, and increase learner autonomy in a learner-centered learning environment (Benson, 2013; Schwienhorst, 2002, 2008). In other words, the multi-modal affordances of multimedia software not only have great potential for developing learners’ language proficiency but also likely foster and awaken their sense of agency through interacting and collaborating with their peers. The notion of pair work cooperation has been widely discussed in the field of ESL/EFL learning (Webb, 1982; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Nunan, 1992; Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004). Several possible advantages of pair work have been identified (Johnson & Johnson, 1990, 1999). Firstly, learners performing pair work may show positive interdependence if they have a common goal to reach. Secondly, learners may take charge of not only their own but also their group’s task for the sake of accountability, an incentive that could prompt high-achievers to cooperate with and help low-achievers to learn. Finally, mutual trust may be fostered and anxiety reduced, leading to a supportive environment for effective learning. Despite the potential of technology-enhanced tools for promoting learner autonomy in language learning, empirical explorations of such effects in virtual environments are still rare. One exception is Collentine’s (2011) study, which investigated the relationship between autonomy in surfing VWs and follow-up written communication by undergraduate students of Spanish as an L2. It was found that students’ autonomous moves during a 3D exploration task significantly influenced the quality of the resultant L2 input, which subsequently affected the accuracy and complexity in their follow-up written iChat. In particular, Reinders and White (2011) called for empirical studies to relate learner autonomy to language acquisition through VWs. They proposed that in addition to individual autonomy (independent operation), autonomy as a paired unit (interdependent operation) in networked communication 5

should also be understood. This multiple agency aspect of autonomy in a social milieu (Godwin-Jones, 2011) is especially important for language learners because technology today affords rapid communication. Research on using VWs as a language learning tool generally emphasizes its functionality in learner interaction (group or pair work), and the results indicate the enhancement of the interaction quality, claiming that tasks performed in VW impart positive influences on online discourse. Peterson (2012a) examined the text chat in Second Life by Japanese EFL university students and found that the collaborative interaction involved peer-scaffolding of lexis and correction, in addition to the use of several social and discursive strategies. In another VW study on online multiplayer role-playing games, MMORPG, Peterson (2012b) examined episodes of text chat in terms of sociocultural competence and found that the participants used politeness appropriately to enhance social relations and social cohesion, leading to cohesion in their L2 output.

2.4 Effects of the virtual environment on language growth Aside from boosting interaction quality during practice, a few studies have revealed the positive impacts of virtual environments on learners’ oral language proficiency. Canto, Jauregi and van den Bergh (2013) found that collaboration in the virtual space, be it Second Life or video web communication, boosted Japanese college learners’ performance in oral tests. Another study by Lan (2014) implemented Second Life as a part of classroom instruction with overseas Chinese students learning Mandarin in Taiwan. The recorded classroom talk showed that the experimental group using Second Life produced more in-class talk and more open-ended responses to the teacher and peers than the control group who went through the same materials led by a teacher. In addition, the boost in talk quality during task execution led to improvements in oral test performance and positive learning attitude upon completion of the sessions. More recently, author and her colleagues examined the effects of 3DVWs on language learning via a meta-analysis (Author & Colleagues, 2019). In the study, the authors successfully retrieved 13 primary studies published between 2008 and 2019, and a large effect size (d = .832) was found for the effects of 3DVWs on language learning. Specifically, a medium-to-large effect size (d = .739) was uncovered for vocabulary learning, providing evidence that the 3DVW applications help improve L2 learners’ vocabulary learning. Notably, research has shown that the creation of 3DVWs promotes the development of learners’ autonomy (Yeh & Lan, 2018). The promising potentials of 3DVWs in facilitating vocabulary learning 6

notwithstanding, it should be noted that among the related empirical studies examining the effects of 3DVWs on vocabulary learning, only a few studies adopted the experimental-vs.-control group design to allow for a between-group comparison to genuinely reveal the superior effects of 3DVWs (Chung, 2012; Ali Mohsen, 2016; Lan, Fang, Hsiao, & Chen, 2018b), while other studies simply followed a pre-post, single group design to claim the effects of 3DVWs without the inclusion of a control group (Lan, 2015; Lan, Hsiao, & Shih, 2018a; Lin, 2010). Since the number of 3DVW studies with an experimental-vs.-control group design is still limited, more empirical evidence needs to be accumulated to substantiate these effects. Specifically, the experimental groups among the studies with the experimental-vs.-control design typically investigated the effects of individual-based learning only. None of the studies in the literature incorporated the elements of the pair-work mode of collaborative learning in the research design, despite the fact that the pedagogical values of this learning mode have been well-recognized in previous studies (Johnson & Johnson, 1990, 1999; Liang, 2002; Godwin-Jones, 2011; Reinders & White, 2011; Peterson, 2012a, 2012b). Similarly, past research also rarely compared the effects of a teacher-centered 3DVWs condition to that without the affordances of 3DVWs in a teacher-centered setting. Aside from the two modes of student-centered practice that is intended by the design, 3DVWs could also be used by teachers as a teaching tool. This is especially true in the traditional teacher-centered classrooms common in the Asian context. Hence, the investigation of the effects of 3DVWs on vocabulary growth could not be comprehensive without being compared to a third mode of use – the teacher-directed approach. Altogether, this study involves three experimental conditions of using 3DVW vocabulary programs – individualistic, paired-work, and teacher-directed, as compared with teacher-directed vocabulary learning without the affordance of 3DVWs. Arguably, checking the effect of a teacher-centered 3DVW setting is crucial in that it can help clarify the extent to which the implementation of 3DVWs outperforms the traditional approach in which the elements of 3DVWs are absent. Furthermore, the inclusion of a teacher-centered 3DVW group enables the whole research framework to establish a common baseline to showcase the effect sizes of exercising learners’ agency in both the individualistic and pair-work modes of learning in 3DVW settings. Because research on virtual environment language learning mainly focuses on the social-cultural dimensions of user interactions, investigating the role of teachers in the classroom implementation of 3D virtual environments is requisite and paramount since it is pedagogy, rather than technology, 7

that affects language learning performance (Liou, 2012; Wang & Vásquez, 2012). In sum, the present study aims to fill the void mentioned above – using quantitative inquiry to compare effects of diverse 3DVW pedagogical approaches on vocabulary learning outcomes. Specifically, the comparable effects between independent and interdependent autonomy in a 3DVW setting warrant further investigation, and the effect of 3DVWs exercised by teachers in the classroom also needs to be scrutinized. In the present study, learner autonomy is examined according to the presence /absence of a facilitator (i.e., teacher-centered condition vs. student-centered condition), and the presence /absence of a collaborator (i.e., individual work vs. pair work) indicates the two different types of autonomous states, that is, self-directed and co-directed.

2.4.Research questions Three research questions were proffered to investigate the effects of 3D virtual environment mediation and two different types of autonomous learning modes (i.e., individualistic vs. pair-work cooperation) on vocabulary learning. 1. Does vocabulary learning mediated by 3D virtual environments have a more salient effect compared to the teacher-centered approach without the affordances of 3D virtual environments? 2. Do individualistic and pair-work autonomous learning modes yield more significant effects than the teacher-centered approach on vocabulary learning in the 3D virtual environments? 3. Does the pair-work autonomous learning mode yield more pronounced effects than the individualistic mode on vocabulary learning in the 3D virtual environments?

3. Methods 3.1.Participants A total of 96 third-graders in four intact classes at an elementary school in northern Taiwan participated in this study. Each class, with 24 students, was assigned to one of the four learning conditions – one control condition/group and three experimental virtual environment (hereafter VE) conditions/groups: the paired VE group, the individual VE group, and the teacher-centered VE group. These students 8

had a homogeneous educational background and shared the same mother tongue, Mandarin Chinese. Prior to the intervention study, a 20-item pictorial vocabulary knowledge test was administered. The words included in the vocabulary test were sampled from the 80 words that had been learned in the first and second-year English classes at school. By comparing the means of the four groups via the analysis of one-way ANOVA, the results showed that no significant difference was found (F = 0.78, p > .05). Hence, all four study groups had a similar level of vocabulary knowledge prior to partaking in the formal study.

3.2.Instrumentation for treatment and for data collection 3.2.2. The 3D virtual environment vocabulary program A 3D virtual environment interactive program jointly designed by a government institute and a local textbook publisher was adopted for this study. An interactive platform on a local network presents multimodal (textual, pictorial, audio and visual) material for users to interact in 3D. Students may choose their own avatar and create a new identity in order to travel around the WelcomeLand environment by various modes of transportation. There are four themes provided in the program: Home, Community, School and Infrastructure, each containing several modules for learning. The present study utilized one module from the theme of Infrastructure, the airport module. Since the site of investigation was an elementary school located in a region of Taipei City with an international airport, the researchers surveyed the students and found that most children had been to the airport for domestic or international travel. Hence, the airport scenario was familiar to the students and the vocabulary could be deemed practical for the participants to learn. In this study, we use virtual environment (VE), instead of VW, to refer to the 3D setting displayed in the learning program since its purpose is educational, and the environment only exists on a single school’s local network. The first two conditions, the control condition and the teacher-centered 3DVE condition, were teacher-centered and were performed in the regular classroom. Students in the control condition were presented with pictorial flashcards with words embedded in the same illustrations as those in the program, while students in the teacher-centered VE condition were guided through the 3D virtual environment program by the teacher, who adopted an avatar, navigated the spaces, and clicked the target words for information. All these moves were shown on a projected screen for the whole class to follow. The other two experimental conditions, the individual 3DVE condition and the paired 3DVE condition, were student-centered and were conducted 9

in a computer laboratory. Students in both conditions went through the word learning process in the same learning environment as students in the teacher-centered VE condition. Students in the former condition had individual access while students in the latter condition had paired access to the computer. Each pair of students sat next to each other, logged into the computer, adopted one avatar, navigated the space, clicked for word information, and worked on the worksheets together. Once registered and avatar chosen, students in the individual VE and paired VE conditions were free to explore six different virtual spaces on the two floors of the Airport scenario. On the first floor is the entrance area, check-in area, and carry-on luggage inspection area, in which 10 words were introduced (Appendix A-1); on the second floor is the shopping area, waiting room, and airplane cabin, in which the other 10 words were introduced (Appendix A-2). For each word, three types of information could be presented: the English word form, its pronunciation, and Chinese meaning, in response to a click for each. A sample screenshot is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A sample screenshot of the VE program of the study

10

3.2.2. Target word selection for the study A preliminary form of 30-item vocabulary test, based on words illustrating the airplane in the 3D airplane module, was pretested on the 96 participants to eliminate words that students had prior knowledge of or that were easy to guess. An item-response check was performed, and 10 items were deemed necessary for removal. A second round of item analysis on the 20 items indicated a high reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of .81. A total of 20 target words were thus adopted for the treatment and for the two posttests in the main study. (Appendix B) Of the 20 words, there were four one-syllable words (clerk, seat, sink, tie), five two-syllable words (luggage, mirror, sidewalk, sofa, T-shirt), five three-syllable words (boarding gate, cosmetics, luggage cart, monitor, passenger), three four-syllable words (check-in counter, flight attendant, X-ray machine) and three words of five or more syllables (automatic door, metal detector, overhead compartment). All the words were noun, with concrete meanings, and among which, 12 were single-word and eight were compound. For the purpose of learning in two 40-minute class sessions, the 20 words were further divided into two sets: 10 related to the first floor of the virtual airport covered in the first class session while the other 10 related to the second floor and were learned in the second session. These 20 words were also the stem words of the 20 multiple-choice items for the immediate and delayed posttests. Multiple-choice items were adopted because they were deemed suitable to assess L2 children’s meaning-form connection of words at a recognition level (Schmitt, 2010). Each item stem presented the illustration of the target vocabulary to cue for meaning, followed by four options in the English written form, including one correct answer and three distracters. The sequence of the items and the order of within-item options Figure 2. A sample test item of the formal study were varied across the two posttests. Items

were dichotomously scored. A sample test item is illustrated as below:

11

3.2.3. Vocabulary flashcards For students in the control condition, 20 flashcards were developed for the presentation of the target words by the teacher. On one side of the card was an English word with its corresponding Chinese translation; on the other was a pictorial illustration, taken from the 3D virtual environment program, representing the meaning of the word. Thus, the flashcard information was identical to that in the 3D virtual environment program. 3.2.4. Map-matching worksheet, word card, picture card, and bomb-matching worksheet Two worksheets were designed to guide vocabulary learning: a Map-matching Worksheet and a Bomb-matching Worksheet. To support the completion of the Map-matching Worksheet, a picture card and a word card were developed for each of the 20 target words. These four instruments were used by all four groups. To control for the effects of teacher quality, all the four study groups were instructed by the same teacher – thus reducing variance from teacher effect. This posited the four study groups on a common reference point so that the VE program effects could be maximized and clearly identified. The Map-matching worksheet, used as the first task, was meant for students to connect meaning, form, and pronunciation of words. It shows the floor map of the airport with icons of a bomb at each site of the target word. Some bombs were numbered and some were not. Students were told there was a bomb threat at the airport and their task was to locate the bomb sites by labeling the numbered bomb icons on the map with the corresponding word and picture cards. To support the completion of the Map-matching Worksheets, all students received a set of 40 cards: 20 picture cards and 20-word cards. On one side of the picture card is an illustration and on the other a number corresponding to that labeled on the Map-matching Worksheet. For the word card, only a typewritten word appears on one side. For a task to reinforce learning, a Bomb-matching Worksheet was employed. It 12

had upper and lower divisions, with the upper one presenting 10 pictorial illustrations, each marked with a letter, and the lower one presenting 10 target words in a bomb-shaped bubble, with a blank parenthesis next to each word for students to fill with the letter designating the illustration in the upper-division. 3.3.Design and treatment procedure Table 1 presents a comparison of factors manifested in each treatment. Both the individual VE and paired VE groups comprised two different states of autonomous control, while the teacher-centered VE group was in the teacher’s full control condition, allowing little agentic control by students. The control group of the study was characterized by the absence of VE mediation and little agentic control by students. Table 1. Factorial Design Matrix across the Four Groups Group

Paired VE

Individual VE

Teacher-centered VE

Control

Factor

VE mediation Autonomous Control Pair work cooperation Note. 1.

indicates the presence of the factor.

All four groups followed the same procedure within each class session by completing three tasks: a Map-matching Task, a Sound-detection task, and a Bomb-matching Task. To instigate an interest in learning, a scenario using an airport map (Appendix A1 and A2) was created to contextualize the tasks. The students’ task was to locate the bomb sites and detonate the bombs by learning and labeling their names. For the three VE groups, the three tasks were delivered and completed via VE presentations while the control group was mainly delivered from the teacher. The Map-matching task was designed for establishing a preliminary link between meaning and form of target words. Students were given a map-matching sheet which contained a ground/second-floor map of the airport and asked to match the facilities with target words. To assist with meaning-form connection, students in the individual VE and paired VE groups were given a picture card and word card, while the teacher in teacher-centered VE group used these cards to demonstrate. For the same purpose, the teacher in the control group used flashcards with illustrations on one side and corresponding words and Chinese definition on another. To elaborate, three specific instructional sequences in terms of meaning-making, 13

form identification, and contextualization were taken: (1) choose a picture card and locate the illustration in the VE airport, (2) click on the located facility and get the English word form and its Chinese definition, (3) stick the corresponding word cards onto the map-matching sheet. Sequence (1) and (2) were performed by the students in the two student-centered VE groups and conducted by the teacher in the teacher-centered VE group. For the control group, these two sub-tasks were replaced by the teacher’s instruction using flashcards. All four groups of students concluded with the sequence of (3). Likewise, the Sound-detection task was designed to further create form-meaning links with the sounds of target words, and two additional instructional sequences were taken: (4) listen to the acoustic input from the VE program by clicking the sound icon next to the word, and (5) repeat at least twice for consolidation. The two student-centered VE groups had full autonomy in clicking and pacing, but the VE group was controlled by the teacher. For the control group, the teacher showed the pictorial flashcards of target words and said each target word out loud, and then asked students to listen and repeat the target words at least 2 times. The final bomb-matching task was designed to integrate and consolidate learning in context. A bomb-matching sheet was given to students of all four groups. Students were required to match the pictorial illustrations with the correct word forms through searching and locating the objects in the VE, with or without the assistance of the teacher. Meanwhile, the teacher in the control group would go through the whole bomb-matching worksheet for the students and ask them to match the pictorial items with the correct target word forms. Table 2 summarizes the treatment features of the four groups. Table 2. Treatment Features per Group group

Paired VE

Individual VE

Meaning

Control

VE

features

Medium

Teacher-centered

VE Program

VE Program

VE Program

Flashcard

on computer

on computer

Screen-broadcasted

VE

VE

VE

Flashcard

VE

VE

VE

teacher

Input Source Aural Input Source Sequencing

Pair-negotiated Self-paced

Teacher-determined

Teacher-determined

Navigation,

Collaborated

Teacher-initiated

None

Self-initiated

14

Search, and Clicking

3.4.Data Collection Procedure Data were collected during the regular class periods in the classrooms within a period of four weeks. The researchers conducted an orientation session in the first week to introduce the 3D VE program to the three VE groups and had each group go through their respective treatment process. Regarding the way of pairings in the VE group, a random assignment was made by choosing students’ ID numbers from a lottery box. Next, the researchers administered the respective treatments to each of the four groups over two class sessions in the second week. In the first session, 10 words were covered in the three tasks, each lasting 20, 12, and 8 minutes respectively. The same procedure was carried out in the second session with the remaining 10 words. After a break, an immediate posttest was administered in 5 minutes at the beginning of the third class session. Two weeks later, a delayed posttest was again administered. Some previous empirical studies on vocabulary teaching have checked learners’ vocabulary retention on a one-day or two-day interval right after the immediate posttest (e.g., Beréndi, Csábi & Kövecses, 2008; Condon, 2008; Csabi, 2004). The results derived from these studies, however, make it difficult to validly detect and claim the long-term effects of explicit vocabulary intervention in their studies. In truth, studies conducted in this way run the risk of instrument familiarity because of the very short posttest interval. Similarly, researchers have suggested that at least a 3-week interval may be required (Brown, Irving, & Keegan, 2008). According to the pilot study conducted in the current work, however, a three-week interval largely masked the retention effect of the VE program. These results might be ascribed to the participants’ low average age (i.e., 10 years old) in the study. In sum, both theoretical concerns and pilot results guided the current work to opt for a two-week interval between the immediate posttest and the delayed retention test. Furthermore, during the two-week interval, the 20 words tested in the immediate posttest were not mentioned or repeated in the classroom instructions, and the students’ attention was fully diverted to in-class games and activities irrelevant to the VE program in the study. Specifically, the games and activities were conducted in such a way that no elements of the VEs were present in the classroom setting of the four study groups. These games and activities we carried out in groups of either four or six students and included neither paired collaboration nor individual work. Finally, 15

over the two- week duration, the use of flashcards was also temporarily disabled so that the practice effect might be minimized in the control group.

3.5.Data Analysis

The scores from the immediate and delayed posttests were analyzed with IBM SPSS using a 4 x 2 ANOVA mixed model, with Group as a between-subject independent variable and the two levels of Time as a within-subject independent variable, and vocabulary test scores as the dependent variable. Follow-up comparison among groups was further made since the factor of group indicated a significant difference. 4. Results 4.1. Item response analysis of the 20-item vocabulary test Fundamentally, the final set of 20 target words sent for the formal study was determined in a way that little guessing likelihood was detected in the pretest stage. A psychometric analysis was conducted via the 3PL item response theory (IRT) model using the formal study data. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the three IRT parameters for the 20-item pictorial vocabulary test. The mean difficulty of the whole test was -0.19; the mean discrimination, 2.67; and the mean guessing rate, 0.05, which was very close to zero. Furthermore, the parameter values of each item were reported in Appendix C. It was noted that the range of the guessing indices fell between 0 and 0.122, and the mean guessing rate was far below the average value of 0.25 under the circumstance in which four options were given for each test item. As shown in Figure 3, item characteristic curves of all the 20 vocabulary items clearly showed very little chance of being answered correctly, i.e. low likelihood of guessing, by the participants of lower ability. Hence, the test scores of the 96 study participants could be deemed valid and reliable, and the likelihood of guessing in the two posttests can be safely precluded. Table 3. Means and standard deviations of the three IRT model parameters Difficulty Discrimination Guessing

Mean

Standard Deviation

-0.19 2.67 0.05

0.73 1.01 0.05

16

Figure 3. The item characteristic curves of the vocabulary test items of the study

4.2. Main effects of group and time Table 4 summarizes the mean scores for the four groups and for the two posttests. Students across groups were able to achieve a moderate retention rate between a mean of 7.13 words and 11.97 words in the immediate posttest, and a mean of 5.42 words to 10.25 words in the delayed posttest. ANOVA analyses revealed a significant main effect for Group (F = 3.98, p < .05, Ƞ2=.12) and a significant main effect for Time (F = 17

91.55, p < .001, Ƞ2=.50). In other words, significant differences could be observed among the four groups as well as between the two posttest performances within groups. Also, no significant interaction between Group and Time was found (F = 1.26, p > .05), which suggested that the differences among the four groups did not vary across time and the difference between the two posttests did not differ among groups.

Table 4. Paired t-tests of Mean Differences between Immediate Posttest and. Delayed. Posttest across the Four Groups. group test

Paired VE

Individual VE

Teacher-

Control

(N=24)

(N=24)

centered VE

(N =24)

(N = 24)

Immediateposttest Delayed-

11.79 (.88)

10.04 (.81)

9.46 (1.01)

7.13 (1.31)

posttest Mean difference t value

10.25 (.97)

8.04 (.86)

7.08 (.99)

5.42 (1.12)

- 1.54 (.38) - 4.05***

- 2.0 (.34) - 5.97***

- 2.38 (.48) - 4.97***

- 1.71 (.38) - 4.46***

95% CI Cohen’s d

[0.75, 2.33] 0.83

[1.31, 2.69] 1.22

[1.38, 3.37] 1.01

[0.92, 2.50] 0.91

Note.

p < .001; Standard error in parentheses.

Furthermore, as indicated in Table 3, the paired VE group lost only a mean of 1.54 (S.E. = .38) words, the least among the three experimental groups. In a similar vein, the individual VE group, with a higher immediate posttest mean than the teacher-centered VE group, had less mean attrition of words (M = -2.0, S.E. = .34) than the teacher-centered VE group (M = -2.38, S.E.= .48). Importantly, the results of the 95% of confidence intervals showed that the paired VE group experienced the lowest degree of attrition regarding verbal memory, followed by the individual VE group, and the teacher-centered VE group. Essentially, the control group with full teacher governance and little VE mediation acquired the fewest words (M = 7.13, SE = 1.31) among the four groups, and the number of words retained in the delayed posttest was also the fewest (M = 5.42, SE = 1.12). 18

4.3. Post-hoc multiple pairwise comparisons To answer research question one with regards to the effect of the 3D virtual environment mediation on students’ immediate and delayed vocabulary acquisition, the three pairs of comparisons, each between one VE group and the control group, were analyzed. Because there was a main effect of Group, post-hoc Tukey HSD tests were performed for multiple pairwise comparisons on the two posttests, respectively. Table 5 reports the comparison of mean difference among the four groups for the immediate posttest and Table 6 for the delayed posttest. Table 5. Post-hoc Tukey HSD Tests on the Mean Differences for Immediate. Posttest among Four Groups Paired VE

Individual VE

Teachercentered VE

Individual VE

- 1.75 (1.44) [-5.33, 0.73] d = .49

Teacher-centered VE

Control

- 2.33* (1.44)

- .58 (1.44)

[-5.73, -0.41]

[-3.20, 4.36]

d = .71

d = .27

- 4.67* (1.44)

- 2.92* (1.44)

- 2.33* (1.44)

[-7.45, -1.09]

[-6.70, -0.86]

[-5.73, -0.41]

d = 1.02

d = .82

d = .71

Note. 1. N = 24 for each group. 2. *p < .05. Standard error in parentheses. 3. 95% CI in brackets. 4. d = Cohen’s d

Table 6. Post-hoc HSD Tests on the Mean Differences for Delayed Posttest among Four Groups Paired VE

Individual VE

Teachercentered VE

Individual VE

- 2.21* (1.40) [-5.12, -0.12] d = .70

Teacher-centered VE

- 3.17* (1.40)

-.96 (1.40) 19

Control

[-5.75, -0.78]

[-4.62, 2.70]

d = .85

d = .25

- 4.83* (1.40)

-2.63* (1.40)

-1.67 (1.40)

[-7.37, -1.15]

[-6.28, -0.18]

[-5.33, 0.90]

d = 1.03

d = .72

d = .47

Note. 1. N = 24 for each group. 2. *p < .05. Standard error in parentheses. 3. 95% CI in brackets. 4. d = Cohen’s d

Firstly, in the immediate posttest, the paired VE group (M = 11.79, SD = .88; see Table 3), the individual VE group (M = 10.04, SD = .81), and the teacher-centered VE group (M = 9.46, SD = 1.01) all performed significantly better than the control group (M = 7.13, SD = 1.31) in the immediate vocabulary test, with all the p-values < .01 (see Table 4 for mean scores and Table 5 for tests of significant difference). Secondly, in the delayed posttest, the superiority over the control group was maintained on the paired VE group (M = 10.25, SD = .97) and the individual VE group (M = 8.04, SD =.86), but not on the teacher-centered VE group (M = 8.04, SD =.86) (Table 6). This finding suggests that the effect of the teacher-centered VE group becomes similar to that of the control group in terms of the number of words retained. On the other hand, the two student-centered VE conditions have great potential in complementing or replacing both the conventional teacher-centered flashcard instructions and also the teacher-centered VE implementation setting. To answer research question two about the effects of learner autonomy on vocabulary learning through VE mediation, we compared each of the two student-centered groups, the paired VE group and the individual VE group, with the teacher-centered VE group on the two posttest scores. In the immediate posttest, the paired VE group (M = 11.79, SD = .88) showed a significantly higher gain than the teacher-centered VE group (M = 9.46, SD = 1.01), because the 95% CI in this pair-comparison [-5.73, -0.41] in the immediate posttest did not include zero. Similarly, in the delayed posttest, the paired VE group (M = 10.25, SD = .97) again significantly outperformed the teacher-centered VE group (M = 7.08, SD = .99), as evidenced by the 95% CIs that did not include zero ([-5.75, -0.38]). However, the mean differences between the individual VE group and the teacher-centered VE group did not reach statistical significance in either the immediate posttest (Mdiff. = .58, 95% CI [-3.20, 4.36]) or the delayed posttest (Mdiff. = .96, 95%CI [-4.62, 2.70]). To answer research question three, the two learner-centered groups were compared 20

with each other. Although there was no significant difference between the paired VE group and the individual VE group in the immediate posttest, the paired VE group significantly outperformed the individual VE group in the delayed posttest. The 95% CI in this chained pair-comparison for immediate posttest [-5.33, 0.73] included zero, whereas for the posttest [-5.12, -0.12] it fell in the region favoring the paired VE group without zero being included (see Tables 4 & 5). Therefore, the paired VE group appeared to carry more weight in applying VE instruction in the classroom than the individual VE group.

5. Discussion 5.1. Effects of VE mediation To summarize, virtual environment mediation has an effect on immediate posttest outcomes when learners operate autonomously in the individual and paired work conditions, and also in the teacher-centered VE condition. However, only the paired VE conditions maintained the same effect until the delayed posttest. Past research rarely looked into the effects of teacher-centered VE mediation on language learning, so the current study stands out as the first empirical undertaking that aims for this. These results lend support to the facilitative role of VE mediation in language learning exercised either by students per se or by teachers. That all three VE groups benefited from the learning in the VE program to varying degrees, as compared with the control condition, supported the postulates by Dual Coding Theory (Pavio, 1986) and the Generative Multimedia Theory of Learning (Mayer, 2000) that multimedia input enhances learning by providing an additional route for meaning-making, reducing cognitive load in processing, and strengthening retention. The present VE program does not only supply a virtual nonverbal context to support L2 vocabulary learning, it also provides both L1 and acoustic information. These findings further corroborate the results of the previous studies that multimedia input available in the virtual environment yielded better effects in vocabulary learning than the traditional teacher-centered approach to English vocabulary instruction (Folse, 2006; Walters, 2006; Webb, 2008). In a similar vein, the mediation of the 3D environments with the avatar navigating among facilities embedded in a larger context of the airport provides a global-level relational network that can be mapped onto personal experiences of an airport tour. This affords learners the ability to exercise relational reasoning (Dunas, Alexander, & Crossnickle, 2013) to piece the meanings of target words into a coherent whole. Furthermore, because the relation among the target words was presented in three 21

dimensions, learners were able to infer their relative geographical location in relation to the larger 3D space as they followed the avatar to carry out missions of search and execution. This unique 3D VE feature, arguably, affords the learners an opportunity to make related, operational and simulated kinesthetic moves using the integration of both physical and mental learning processes in context as stipulated by experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2015). In lieu of the theory and the present positive results, it is therefore suggested that VEs can serve as an effective vocabulary-learning site for young learners. Although the teacher-directed approach to VE vocabulary learning did have a limitation in effect, the present finding stands out as one singular study investigating the effect of teacher mediation in VE learning. The findings derived from this group is significant in the following aspects. First, previous research (as meta-analyzed in Author & Colleagues) rarely examined the effects of teacher/students collaborative practice in the regular classroom, a flexible condition commonly compromised by practitioners between spare computer labs and tight teaching schedules. Secondly, most of the studies compared VE student-centered learning with traditional teacher-directed instruction as a control condition, which involved components that may confound the results. Such comparison, in fact, is examining two separate factors in one shot: VE and student agency versus traditional medium and teacher direction. The addition of a teacher-directed VE group in the present study teased apart the effect of a VE and the effect of teacher direction, thus enabling a closer inspection into teacher effects involved in the practice of a VE program. Thirdly, VE language learning in the past has mainly focused on the sociocultural dimensions of user interactions. Hence, the present design enabling the teacher and students in the teacher-centered VE condition to collectively navigate and monitor the search process and evaluate the search results together added another possible mode of social-cultural interaction in VE use. Arguably, the unconventional use of technology, a coinage of multimedia input and teacher/students collaborative practice in the classroom, was superior to conventional teacher-centered instruction using flashcards as a teaching aid. It is therefore suggested that language teachers adopt VE programs such as the one investigated to facilitate vocabulary learning. The function of traditional vocabulary presentation with flashcards or blackboard writing may be extended and the meaning of words may be enriched through the use of VR elements. Given the gradual use of an interactive whiteboard, the incorporation of a VE into the language classroom is gaining its floor. Hence, language teachers may ride the tide by incorporating a VE into their innovation in teaching. As put by Gao (2019), regarding language teacher agency, “language teachers “should explore ways to create and sustain the contextual 22

conditions that are conductive to changes in their learning and professional practice” (p. 165). The change may lie in the employment of current VE context to support teaching. 5.2. Effects of learner autonomy on vocabulary learning in 3D virtual environments Only the pair-work VE condition surpassed the teacher-centered condition in both delayed posttests. The individual VE condition, on the other hand, did not differ from the teacher-centered condition in either posttest. Hence, learner agency works only when another agent was present to interact. Thus, the results partially supported the previous findings on the positive role of a virtual environment in facilitating learning in a learner-centered context (Jung, 2002; Schwienhorst, 2002; Garcia-Ruiz & Edwards, 2008). Nevertheless, the results conflicted with the findings by Hitosugi, Schmidt, and Hayashi’s (2014), which showed that virtual reality practice was not a preferred option compared to explicit instruction in facilitating vocabulary learning. This disparity may be explained by the explicit locus of the target words and reinforcement tasks in the present study on the one hand, and the implicit presentation of vocabulary in Hitosugi et al.’s (2014) study on the other. Taken together, the results suggest that the paired autonomous use might dovetail with the design nature of the program in assisting learning, thereby entailing a more profound retention of vocabulary. Prior empirical studies attested to the superior effects of an individual VE condition over the traditional teacher-centered condition without a VE (Lan, 2015; Lan, Hsiao, & Shih, 2018a; Lin, 2010). The current study takes this idea one step further by showing that the individual VE condition was only as equally effective as the teacher-centered VE condition. This could be possibly explained by the fact that the effect of learner agency in the individual VE condition was balanced out by the advantages assumed by the teacher-led VE condition – the extraneous works in navigating and trouble in correcting errors that the individualistic VE group might likewise encounter were paralleled by the teacher’s proactive control of the VE navigation as well as timely interaction with the students. In other words, the teacher’s mediation of a direct route to meaning-making could be compensated for the less agentic freedom in using the VE program, resulting in a similar performance to that of the individualistic VE group in the two posttests. In sum, coupled with explicit presentation and contextualized practice, VE vocabulary programs scaffolded by teachers could be an alternative for individual-based vocabulary learning. 5.3. Effects of pair work The results indicate that the pair work VE condition can excel the individual VE 23

condition in the delayed posttest but not in the immediate posttest. Collectively, our study has shown that the words gained through teacher mediation or individualistic exploration in the virtual environment may be forgotten more quickly than words gained through learners’ agentic collaboration via pair work. The paired VE group not only performed better but also exhibited lower long-term word attrition than the individual VE group. A possible explanation is that paired work, with interaction among three sources (i.e., personal, peer, and virtual), might command deeper cognitive processing and higher learner engagement than individual work at the time of learning. Although both student-centered groups benefited from autonomous control in the learning process, the factor of collaboration appears to have added more weight to learner engagement and seems to have led to deeper levels of cognitive processing. In addition, students engaging in paired work may have advantages that are not accessible for students who work individually. First, with a study partner present, they are afforded chances to clarify their doubts and check their answers (Ellis, Gibbs, & Rein, 1991; Schwienhorst, 2002; Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004). Moreover, the assistance given by partners may be more individualized, relevant, and direct than from the teacher who gives general guidelines to the whole class (Slavin, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978). For these reasons, the superior performance of the paired VE group was most evident in the delayed posttest. Thus, paired work may have a more pivotal role to play in VE applications than individual work. To argue, these research findings underscore the essential elements of co-regulated learning in the context of virtual environments that may not be created in the individualistic mode of VE learning, that is, fostering positive interdependence, mutual accountability, and scaffolded learning (Ellis, et al., 1991; Schwienhorst, 2002; Peterson, 2012a, 2012b), and timely address the research gap as pointed out by Reinders and White (2011). In sum, the current study suggests that the effect of learner autonomy is more likely to be pronounced when learners engage in collaboration with a peer rather than work and explore in isolation using a virtual learning environment. 5.4 Pedagogical implications The present findings not only point to the feasibility of virtual environment mediation in vocabulary learning, but also to the positive role pair work plays in promoting EFL vocabulary acquisition for children at the elementary level. Several suggestions for classroom implementation of virtual environments are thus derived. First, virtual environment mediated programs presenting vocabulary in varied contexts can be designed in alignment with textbook lessons for children to engage in meaningful learning of vocabulary. These programs may come in various scenarios 24

simulating children’s real-life experiences, creating interactive platforms for authentic communication, applying multimedia aids to support meaning, and constructing a new identity through the use of avatars, as suggested by Jung (2002) and Garcia-Ruiz and Edwards (2008). They should not only be made accessible for teachers to use as classroom teaching materials, but also for children to use inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, when utilizing virtual environment programs for vocabulary learning, a student-centered practice should be adopted to promote learner autonomy. It is suggested that training be administered prior to use so as to achieve efficiency in navigation and to promote interactivity with the program and with peers (Wang & Vásquez, 2012). Moreover, for a better effect in long-term retention, pair work is recommended, especially in school contexts, to foster a supportive environment and to nurture vocabulary growth through peer interaction. Finally, the results of this study point to a redefined role for teachers when they adopt virtual environment games for language learning. Ideally, teachers should adopt the role of coach or facilitator, as teacher-fronted instruction is only required during the initial period of training students in navigating the virtual environment. Once the students are familiar with the game interface, navigation, and task instructions, teachers may let students learn autonomously. As facilitators, they can monitor the student pairs to ensure that partners work amicably, and reassign partners if necessary. Also, they may intervene if students appear unable to complete the navigation and learning tasks in the allotted time. 6. Conclusion To conclude, the superior intervention effects of learner autonomy witnessed in the paired work condition echo the contemporary tenet that learning is fundamentally social (Vygotsky, 1978). ‘Significant others’ such as peers and teachers in facilitating language learning are no less important for children, not only in regular classrooms but also in virtual worlds that we construct, use, and play in every day, as revealed in this study. With this research endeavor, the current work hopes to shed light on the feasibility of learner autonomy and collaboration in the learning of vocabulary via virtual environments, a wave of learning technology that language-teaching professionals are about to ride.

25

References Author & Colleagues (2019). Ali Mohsen, M. (2016). The use of computer-based simulation to aid comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 863-884. Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & Kovecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 65-100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, G., Irving, E., & Keegan, P. (2008). An introduction to educational assessment, measurement and evaluation. Auckland, NZ: Pearson Education. Benson (2013). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. New York: Routledge. Canto, S., Jauregi, K., & van den Bergh, H. (2013). Integrating cross-cultural interaction through video-communication and virtual worlds in foreign language teaching programs: is there an added value? ReCALL, 25, 105-121. Chang, C. Y. (2006) The effects on learning English alphabet via Internet multimedia for lower-achievement students. Master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan. Chang, M. M., & Ho, C. M. (2009). Effects of locus of control and learner control on web-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 189-206. Chung, L. Y. (2012). Incorporating 3D-virtual reality into language learning. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 6, 249-255. Coe, R. (2002, September). It’s the effect size, stupid. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm Collentine, K (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3D world and production. Language Learning & Technology, 15 (3), 50-67. Condon, N. (2008). How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of the phrasal verbs. In F. Boers & Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 133-158). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cotterall (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System. 23, 26

195-205. Csábi, S. (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In M. Achard & S. Niemer (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 233-256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 391–427. Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware: some issues and experiences. Commun. ACM, 34, 39-58. Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273-293. Gao, X. (2019). The Douglas Fir Group Framework as a Resource Map for Language Teacher Education. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 161-166. Garcia-Ruiz, M. A., & Edwards, A. (2008). Collaborating and learning a second language in a Wireless Virtual Reality Environment. Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2, 369-377. Gardner, D., & Garcia, R. B. (1996). Interactive video as self-access support for language-learning beginners. In R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or, & H. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 219-232). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies: Autonomous language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15, 4-11. Hitosugi, C. I., Schmidt, M., Hayashi, K. (2014). Digital Game-based Learning (DGBL) in the L2 classroom: The impact of the UN’s off-the-shelf video game, Food Force, on learner affect and vocabulary retention. CALICO Journal, 31, 19-39. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. London: Pergamon. Hong, X. (2010). Review of effects of glosses on incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguists, 33, 56-73. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1990). Social skills for successful group work. Educational Leadership, 47, 29-33. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67-73. Jung, H. J., (2002). Virtual reality for ESL students. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(10). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Jung-VR.html Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson Education. 27

Lan, Y. J. (2014). Does Second Life improve Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese students? Language Learning & Technology, 18, 36-56. Lan, Y. J. (2015). Contextual EFL learning in a 3D virtual environment. Language Learning & Technology,19, 16-31. Lan, Y. J., Fang, W. C., Hsiao, I. Y., & Chen, N. S. (2018b). Real body versus 3D avatar: the effects of different embodied learning types on EFL listening comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 709-731. Lan, Y. J., Hsiao, I. Y., & Shih, M. F. (2018). Effective learning design of game-based 3D virtual language learning environments for special education students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21, 213-327. Lepper (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40, 1-18. Lin, Y. C. (2009). The effects of visual aids and text types on listening comprehension. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. Lin, Y. C. (2010). Research on vocabulary acquisition of upper elementary school students in a collaborative virtual environment. Master’s thesis, National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan. Liou, H. (2012). The roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 365–382. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy I: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. (2002). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 14 February 2016, from http://www. llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409 Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 55-71. Nunan, D. (1992) Collaborative language learning and teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Paivio, A., & Desrochers, A. (1980). A dual-coding approach to building memory. 28

Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 388-399. Peterson, M. (2011). Towards a Research Agenda for the Use of Three- Dimensional Virtual Worlds in Language Learning, Calico Journal, 29, 1, 64-80. Peterson, M. (2012a). EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCall, 24, 20-39. Peterson, M. (2012b). Learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG): A sociocultural discourse analysis. ReCALL, 24, 361–380. Reinders, H., & White, C. (2011). Special issue commentary: Learner autonomy and new learning environments. Language Learning and Teaching, 15, 1-3. Sadler, R. (2012). Virtual worlds for language learning: From theory to practice. New York: Peter Lang. Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Why virtual, why environments? Implementing virtual world concepts in computer-assisted language learning. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 196-209. Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. NY: Routledge. Slavin, R. (1978) Student teams and achievement divisions. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 39-49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Walters, J. (2006) Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. RELC Journal, 37, 176-190. Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29, 412-430. Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24, 1-14. Webb, N. M. (1982). Predicting interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642-655. Webb, S. (2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20, 232-245. Yeh, Y. L., Lan, Y. J., & Lin, Y. T. R. (2018). Gender-related differences in collaborative learning in a 3D virtual reality environment by elementary school students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 204-216. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using 29

wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42, 289-314.

30

31

32

Appendix B. The 20-item pictorial vocabulary test

33

34

Appendix C. The difficulty, discrimination, and guessing indices of the 20-item pictorial vocabulary test

Item

Difficulty

Discrimination

Guessing

Q1

0.254

1.617

0.000

Q2

-1.124

1.967

0.000

Q3

-0.117

4.471

0.000

Q4

0.915

3.879

0.123

Q5

-0.102

2.775

0.122

Q6

-0.358

2.713

0.114

Q7

-0.385

2.495

0.077

Q8

0.283

3.679

0.113

Q9

-0.161

1.830

0.000

Q10

0.238

2.578

0.078

Q11

0.556

3.806

0.027

Q12

-1.749

1.541

0.085

Q13

0.792

4.712

0.066

Q14

-0.880

2.486

0.000

Q15

-1.480

1.194

0.001

Q16

-1.057

2.631

0.000

Q17

-0.132

1.696

0.048

Q18

0.391

2.239

0.102

Q19

0.293

3.380

0.117

Q20

-0.029

1.723

0.000

35