h those of visual and verbal/visual groups. Also, this difference is significant enough. It was found that verbal group outperformed the visual one, but indicates underperformance compared with verbal/visual group. It can be implicated that using verbal cues to convey the new vocabulary enhances vocabulary knowledge of the students when compared with visual cues.
Research Question 2-What is the potential effect of visual techniques (flashcards, pictures, photographs, etc.) on vocabulary achievement of Iranian EFL students?
From among there groups, visual group had the least performance. Different learners go through different routes and use different strategies to memorize L2 vocabulary. Depending on their individual characteristics, they have verbal or visual preferences and store information in these two systems differently. Ignoring verbal cues and overemphasis on visual gloss while in favor of visualizes, constrains the use of strategies like verbal association by verbalizes. It can be concluded that in orienting the learner toward the knowledge of vocabulary, the teachers should not solely relay on visual cues and take advantages of contiguous presentation of visual and verbal materials.
Research Question 3-Which one is more efficient? Visual techniques, verbal techniques or a combination of these two techniques in enhancing vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL students? The mean difference of three groups indicates that verbal/visual group outperformed the verbal and visual groups suggesting that complementary use of these modalities leads to development of vocabulary knowledge. By combining different modalities each medium’s strengths compensate for the other medium’s weaknesses. Linked verbal and visual information helps students make connections, understand relationships and recall related details.

Table 4.1. pretest score means of the groups under study

N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum

Group 1
20
14.8500
2.73909
8.00
18.00
Group 2
20
14.6500
2.60111
9.00
18.00
Group 3
20
14.8500
2.53969
10.00
18.00
Total
60
14.7833
2.58478
8.00
18.00

As you observe, based on the table contents, the mean scores of the groups is not statistically different. Therefore, it can be claimed that these three groups are nearly homogeneous in competence. This can help the quality of the research.

ANOVA
Table 4.2.pretest scores means

Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
.533
2
.267
.039
.962
Within Groups
393.650
57
6.906

Total
394.183
59

As shown above, using ANOVA adds clarity to the statistical operations verifying that the whole three groups are homogeneous.

Table 4.3. Posttest scores

N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum

Group 1
20
14.6500
2.68083
9.00
18.00
Group 2
20
14.8500
2.43386
10.00
19.00
Group 3
20
18.4000
1.31389
16.00
20.00
Total
60
15.9667
2.79204
9.00
20.00

Table 4.3 clearly shows how based on the obtained results one group outshone other groups. As it is seen, group 3 that used combination of the techniques outperformed the other groups by mean score of 18.40 and SD of 1.3.

ANOVA
Table 4.4. estimating posttest scores based on AVNOVA method

Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
178.033
2
89.017
17.999
.000
Within Groups
281.900
57
4.946

Total
459.933
59

By using ANOVA for posttest scores it becomes evident how one group (among others) acted better. By comparing the sum of scores it is clear that the groupdidn’t perform the same.

Table 4.5. Pretest and posttest raw scores of groups 1, 2, and 3.
Group
pretest
posttest
1.00
15.00
14.00
1.00
16.00
17.00
1.00
17.00
17.00
1.00
15.00
14.00
1.00
18.00
18.00
1.00
14.00
14.00
1.00
17.00
17.00
1.00
15.00
15.00
1.00
18.00
17.00
1.00
17.00
17.00
1.00
16.00
15.00
1.00
16.00
16.00
1.00
15.00
15.00
1.00
18.00
18.00
1.00
14.00
13.00
1.00
12.00
11.00
1.00
15.00
15.00
1.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
11.00
11.00
1.00
8.00
9.00
2.00
16.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
14.00
2.00
15.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
15.00
2.00
18.00
18.00
2.00
14.00
14.00
2.00
16.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
15.00
2.00
18.00
19.00
2.00
17.00
17.00
2.00
16.00
16.00
2.00
16.00
15.00
2.00
15.00
15.00
2.00
18.00
18.00
2.00
14.00
14.00
2.00
11.00
12.00
2.00
14.00
15.00
2.00
11.00
12.00
2.00
9.00
10.00
2.00
10.00
10.00
3.00
14.00
18.00
3.00
15.00
16.00
3.00
18.00
20.00
3.00
15.00
18.00
3.00
18.00
20.00
3.00
13.00
17.00
3.00
17.00
19.00
3.00
15.00
17.00
3.00
16.00
18.00
3.00
18.00
20.00
3.00
16.00
20.00
3.00
16.00
19.00
3.00
15.00
17.00
3.00
18.00
20.00
3.00
14.00
18.00
3.00
11.00
17.00
3.00
16.00
19.00
3.00
11.00
18.00
3.00
11.00
20.00
3.00
10.00
17.00

Based on Table 5, you can see the raw scores of the three groups under study. Based on the obtained results viewing the raw scores one can see there is no statistically differences between the three groups under study. It is cogently concluded that since they seem to be homogeneous therefore the validity of the research conduction cannot go under question. For better understanding the similarity of the groups in the pretest and their differences in the posttest, the data have been analyzed in a diagram (see diagram 5 below).

Figure4.1.Vocabulary achievement of three experimental groups in pre and posttest

This figure show that, group three (verbal/visual techniques) was the best one. Group two (verbal techniques) was much better than group one. Group one (visual techniques) was the group which acquired the least amount of vocabulary.
This figure show that, group three (verbal/visual techniques) was the best one. Group two (verbal techniques) was much better than group one. Group one (visual techniques) was the group which acquired the least amount of vocabulary.
The findings can be summarized as:
1. Making use of verbal and visual techniques in order to present new vocabulary in EFL classes in Iran is an effective strategy.
2. While using one of these techniques, verbal techniques are more efficient than visual techniques.
3. Combination of these two techniques demonstrated greater vocabulary achievement than when one of them was used alone.
These findings corroborate the theoretical concepts of “Semiotics”, “Dual coding” and “Cognitive load”. All of these concepts take humans’ visual-spatial cognition into account and theoretically lend support to our findings. Each concept and its contribution to our findings are discussed below.
4.2.1. Semi
otics and vocabulary teaching
We can define “semiotics” or “semi logy” as the study of signs, how they work and how we use them. According to Harrison (2003) semiotics would show what constitutes signs and what laws govern them. In fact, linguistics is only one part of the general science of semiology which is not limited to verbal signs only. Since language is the most important and complex sign system, semiotics is closely linked to linguistics and different components of language, e.g. vocabulary. While teaching vocabulary, if we are especially concerned with verbal and visual signs, the science of semiotics and its relationship to vocabulary teaching gains more importance. It is a fact that the primary concern of vocabulary teaching is to place the meaning of the words in the long term memory of the students. Many words possess semiotic elements. Semiotic elements provide learners with a better understanding of vocabulary item and help them develop lexical knowledge in the target language (Harrison, 2003). Hawkes (1977), stated that the use of semiotic elements included within the nature of the lexical items not only helps learners to deduce the meanings of the words but also leads to the cognitive learning of the words because of presenting visual feedback for the students. Semiotics is the study of all communication phenomena by way of signs. According to Harrison (2003), there are two central issues about semiotics: First, it deals with the relationship between the sign and its meaning. Second, semiotics studies the way by which signs are combined through certain rules. Vocabulary teaching is an area which is closely linked to semiotics. According to Sebeok (1991), the subject matter of semiotics is the exchange of any messages and of the system of signs which underlie them. Since its concerns include considerations of how messages are successively generated, encoded, transmitted, decoded and interpreted, and how context influences this kind of transaction, it is in close relationship with vocabulary teaching.
4.2.2. Dual coding theory (DCT)
The effectiveness of multimodal input in language learning environments can be explained by Paivio’s “dual coding theory”. According to Sadosky and Paivio (2004), a basic premise of DCT is that all mental representations derive from external experiences and have some of the qualities of the external experiences. These experiences can be linguistic or non-linguistic. Their different features develop into two separate mental systems, or codes, one specialized for representing and processing language (verbal code) and one for processing nonlinguistic objects and events (nonverbal code).The latter is frequently referred to as the “imagery system” because its functions include the generation, analysis, and transformation of mental images. Each system or code has its own characteristic units and organization. Together, the two codes account for knowledge of language and knowledge of the world. Using multiple (auditory and visual) ways of retrieving new vocabulary, knowledge of world established which is because of the simultaneous engagement of auditory and visual memory. Dual coding also, allows the learner to process new L2 forms more deeply and to associate them directly with images from the target language, instead of merely linking the target form to an equivalent L1 form (Lafford, B; Lafford, P & Sykes, 1999). According to Stone (2003), presenting new vocabulary can be improved by associating a spoken form of the new word with a picture of the item, which can be accompanied by a written representation of the word. She proposed that instead of relying on L1-L2 translation, “natural” way of approaching the new words will be effective. By “natural”, she meant the same way humans acquired their native language, by directly associating words written and spoken form with objects, actions and ideas that convey meaning. According to Lafford, et al., (1999) the two mental codes and our five senses are orthogonal in DCT. This means that the two codes each have subsets of mental representations that are different because of the different sensory experiences from which they originated. They asserted that we develop visual representations in the verbal code for language units we have seen such as letters, words, or phrases (e.g. a ball). But, we also develop visual representations in the nonverbal code for nonlinguistic forms that we have seen such as common objects. Likewise, we develop auditory representations in both verbal and non-verbal codes. DCT is a unique theory in its emphasis on the verbal and non-verbal distinctions in mental representations. It implies that the more learners associate target words with appropriate nonverbal referents (pictures, objects, events and emotions), the richer and more meaningful will be their interconnections between verbal and visual systems. As a result, they have a better recall and appropriate use of the words when they learn through two codes than when the words are coded in a single manner. Therefore, additional pictorial cues are effective in helping learners make associations between pictures and words. Some researchers have moved from the idea of distinctive skills


دیدگاهتان را بنویسید