In an increasingly multilingual world, it is important to examine methods that may lead to more efficient second language learning, as well as to analyze the mechanisms by which successful learning occurs. The purpose of the current study was to investigate how different learning contexts can impact the learning of Mandarin Chinese as a second language. Two contexts [virtual environment (VE) vs. traditional learning environment] were compared and examined from cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Thirty-one monolingual English speakers participated in a training study consisting of seven learning and testing sessions, followed by one additional sessions of delayed post-testing. The participants’ behavioral performances with regard to accuracy, reaction time, and exposure were collected and analyzed. Through analyses of variance and mixed-effects modeling, the current study shows that the learning trajectory of the participants in the VE showed a larger acceleration than that of those in the traditional learning context, which suggests that simulated embodied experience in the VE may have aided in the processing of a second language, especially with regard to enhancing the learning trajectory in short-term second language training.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
To ensure that the difference between the 2D line drawings and the 3D color pictures did not affect the learning outcome, we recruited a separate group of participants in a picture naming experiment. Thirty-four participants named the 2D line drawings and the 3D color pictures in separated blocks and the order of the blocks were counter-balanced. The corresponding name agreement score was .91 (i.e., 91% of the time the two different types of pictures yielding the same names). The correlation of name agreement score was .83 (i.e., the same picture that has high name agreement in 2D line drawings also has high name agreement in 3D color pictures). There is no significant different on name agreement scores between the two types of pictures; t(178) =.087, p > .05.
Abercrombie, S. (2011). Examining the influence of seductive details in case-based instruction on pre-service teachers’ learning and learning performances. Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico.
Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology, 102, 35–39.
Baayen, R. H. (2004). Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards. Mental Lexicon Working Papers, 1, Edmonton, 1–45.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–837.
Barcroft, J. (2004). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A lexical input processing approach. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 200–208.
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457–474.
Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepersm, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. The Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). _lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4_. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 863–873.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactice Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed.). San Fransisco: Longman.
Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences modulated the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study. Cognitive Bran Research, 24, 355–363.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 38–63.
Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second language vocabulary over time: Investigating the role of mnemonic associations. System, 8, 221–235.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowart, M. (2005). Embodied cognition. http://www.iep.utm.edu/embodcog/. Accessed 23 April 2014.
Development Core Team, R. (2004). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Dixon, P. (2008). Memory and Language Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447–456.
Fang, S., Legault, J., Lan, Y., & Li, P. (2015). Neural correlates of short-term second language training: Context of learning effects (under review).
Forster, K. I., & Dickinson, R. G. (1976). More on the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: Monte carlo estimates of error rates for F1, F2, F’, and minF’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 135–142.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92–102.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermueller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137–166. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000509.
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 135–149.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Prentice-Hall International.
Kroll, J. F., & Curley, J. (1988). Lexical memory in novice bilinguals. The role of concepts in retrieving second language words. In M. Grunenberg, P. Morris, & R. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (2nd ed., pp. 389–395). London: Wiley.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., and Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R packageversion 2.0-11.http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
Lan, Y. J. (2013). The effect of technology-supported co-sharing on L2 vocabulary strategy development. Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 1–16.
Lan, Y. J. (2014). Does Second Life improve Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese students? Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 36–56.
Lan, Y.-J., Kan, Y.-H., Hsiao, I. Y. T., Yang, S. J. H., & Chang, K.-E. (2013). Designing interaction tasks in Second Life for Chinese as a foreign language learners: A preliminary exploration. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 184–202.
Lan, Y.-J., Kan, Y. H., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2nd revision). Oral-performance language tasks for CSL beginners in Second Life. Language Learning & Technology (under review).
Li, P. (2015). Bilingualism as a dynamic process. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence (pp. 511–536). Hoboken: John Wiley.
Li, P., Zhang, F., Tsai, E., & Puls, B. (2014). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 673–680.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
McCulloch, C. E., & Neuhaus, J. M. (2011). Misspecifying the shape of a random effects distribution: why getting it wrong may not matter. Statistical Science, 26(3), 388–402.
Meara, P. (1982). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. In V. Kinsella (Ed.), Surveys I: Eight state-of-the-art articles on key areas in language teaching (pp. 100–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5–10.
Peterson, M. (2011). Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in language learning. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 67–80.
Peterson, M. (2012). Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: an exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22(3), 273–292.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: the Loyola symposium. L. Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 478–493.
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246–256.
Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 216–237.
Rueda, Y. T. (2006). Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 169–182.
Rueschemeyer, S. A., Lindemann, O., van Rooij, D., van Dam, W., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Effects of intentional motor actions on embodied language processing. Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 260–266.
Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344–355.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Snyder, P. J., & Harris, L. J. (1993). Handedness, sex, and familial sinistrality effects on spatial tasks. Cortex, 29(1), 115–134.
Smidt, E., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). Effects of online academic lectures on ESL listening comprehension, incidental vocabulary acquisition, and strategy use. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5), 517–556.
Snow, M. A. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and content instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 693–712). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some materials is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279–301.
Upal, M. A., Gonce, L. O., Tweney, R. D., & Slone, D. J. (2007). Contexualizing counterintuitiveness: How context affects comprehension and memorability of counterintuitive concepts. Cognitive Science, 31, 415–439.
Van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sam-ple size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A(3), 631–650.
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Willems, R. M., & Casasanto, D. (2011). Flexibility in embodied language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 116.
Yang, J., & Li, P. (2012). Brain networks of explicit and implicit learning. PLoS ONE, 7, e42993. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042993.
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.
We would like thank Yu-Ting Hsiao, Yu-Hsuan Kan, Indy Majere, and Luis Tzeng for their assistance with constructing the VEs in Second Life, and Karishma Kodia, Sarah Newby, Evan Oliver, Shinmin Wang for their assistance with running the experiment. The research was supported by funds from the Aim for Top University Office of the National Taiwan Normal University, the Joint Advanced Center for the Study of Learning Sciences (MOST 104-2911-I-003-301), and the US National Science Foundation (BCS-1338946).
|Chinese word||English translation|
|鋼杯 (gangbei)||Steel cup|
About this article
Cite this article
Lan, Y., Fang, S., Legault, J. et al. Second language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese vocabulary: context of learning effects. Education Tech Research Dev 63, 671–690 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9380-y
- Virtual worlds
- Mandarin Chinese
- Embodied cognition
- Contextual immersion
- Second language learning
- Vocabulary acquisition