Cited by 759Second Language Acquisition and LearningSubtitles and Audiovisual MediaReading and Literacy Development

Effects of Multimedia Annotations on Vocabulary Acquisition

CHUN, DOROTHY M., PLASS, JAN L.·1996·The Modern Language Journal

Abstract

Research on second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition has revealed that words associated with actual objects or imagery techniques are learned more easily than those without. With multimedia applications, it is possible to provide, in addition to traditional definitions of words, different types of information, such as pictures and videos. Thus, one of the fundamental research questions posed in the use of multimedia systems is: How effective are annotations with different media types for vocabulary acquisition? This article discusses the results of three studies done with 160 university German students using CyberBuch, a hypermedia application for reading German texts that contains a variety of annotations for words in the form of text, pictures, and video. The issues examined are related to (a) how well vocabulary is learned incidentally when the goal is reading comprehension, (b) the effectiveness of different types of annotations for vocabulary acquisition, and (c) the relationship between look-up behavior and performance on vocabulary tests. The results showed a higher rate of incidental learning than expected (25% accuracy on production tests, 77% on recognition tests), significantly higher scores for words that were annotated with pictures + text than for those with video + text or text only, and a correlation between looking up a certain annotation type and using this type as the retrieval cue for remembering words.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01159.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CHUN, D. M., & PLASS, J. L.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
  • CHUN, DOROTHY M.
  • PLASS, JAN L.
Venue
The Modern Language Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-06
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
183-198
ISSN
  • 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-4781
OpenAlex
W2016414194
Cited by
759
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 47
FWCI
12.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
multimedia annotation, vocabulary acquisition, second language vocabulary, incidental learning, video annotation, German as a second language, retrieval cues, reading comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review