The Effect of Stereoscopic Three-Dimensional Images on Vocabulary Learning

Abstract

Vocabulary is crucial for language learning. Therefore, searching for the most effective methods to master vocabulary is an important quest. This study investigated the effect of stereoscopic three-dimensional (S3D) images on recall and retention of foreign language vocabulary. S3D images, frequently used in virtual reality visualizations, are highly realistic and differ from non-stereoscopic three-dimensional (NS3D) images in that they provide an impression of depth. In this within-subject study, American subjects (N = 82) were exposed to 16 Polish words accompanied by corresponding images. Half of these images were in NS3D format, and half were in S3D format. The vocabulary was counterbalanced throughout four randomly distributed versions of the experiment. Quantitative data were drawn from immediately administered and one-week-delayed productive and receptive vocabulary tests. Qualitative data were gathered through background questionnaires and follow-up surveys, which included a mixture of open-ended and Likert scale questions.  Two-tailed, paired t-tests showed no significant difference on vocabulary recall and retention of test scores for words represented with NS3D and S3D images. Post hoc tests revealed that lower performance on S3D images occurred only for those subgroups of subjects who exhibited discomfort or lack of experience with S3D technology, or both.

Keywords

• Vocabulary learning,Stereoscopic 3D images,Multimedia,Virtual reality,Immersive environments

References

1. Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, 31. Retrieved on 24 December 2018 from www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
3. Bando, T., Iijima, A., & Yano, S. (2012). Visual fatigue caused by stereoscopic images and the search for the requirement to prevent them: A review. Displays, 33, 76-83.
4. Barfield, W. & Rosenberg, C. (1995). Judgments of azimuth and elevation as a function of monoscopic and binocular depth cues using a perspective display. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 173-181.
5. Bush, M. D. (2007). Facilitating the integration of culture and vocabulary learning: The categorization and use of pictures in the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 727-745.
6. Chun, D. M. & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotation on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183-198.
7. Cid, X. C. & Lopez, R. E. (2010). The impact of stereo display on student understanding of phases of the moon. Astronomy Education Review, 9(1), DOI: 10.3847/AER2009044.
8. Cliburn, D. & Krantz, J. (2008). Towards an effective low-cost virtual reality display system for education. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 23(3), 147-153.

9. Drascic, D. (1991). Skill acquisition and task performance in teleoperation using monoscopic and stereoscopic video remote viewing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 35(19). San Francisco, CA: Sage.
10. Dwyer, F. M. (1969). An experimental analysis of the use of realism in illustrations used to complement programmed instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 6, 147-153.
11. Ferdig, R., Blank, J., Kratcoski, A., & Clements, R. (2015). Using stereoscopy to teach complex biological concepts. Advances in Physiology Education, 39(3), 205-208.
12. Hannafin, M. J. & Hooper, S. R. (1993). Learning principles. In M. L. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (2nd ed.), pp. 191-227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
13. Hansen, J. A., Barnett, M., MaKinster, J. G., & Keating, T. (2004). The impact of three‐dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomical concepts: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1365-1378.
14. Keebler, J. R. (2011). Effects of 3D stereoscopy, visuo-spatial working memory, and perceptions of simulation experience on the memorization of confusable objects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
15. Kim, D. & Gilman, D. A. (2008). Effects of text, audio, and graphic aids in multimedia instruction for vocabulary learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 114-126.
16. Kim, D., Yoo, J., & Seo, Y. (2013). Qualitative analysis of individual and composite content factors of stereoscopic 3D video causing visual discomfort. Displays, 34(3), 223-240.
17. Lewis, L. A., Zaritsky, E., Heinrichs, W. L., & Nezhat, C. (2006). Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 107(4), 78S.
18. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 225-244.
19. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236.
20. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Mayer, R. E. & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.
22. McGraw, T. M. (2004). The effects of two-dimensional stimuli and three-dimensional stereoptic stimuli on spatial representation in drawings. Studies in Art Education, 45(2), 153-169.
23. McIntire, J. P., Havig, P. R., & Geiselman, E. E. (2014). Stereoscopic 3D displays and human performance: A comprehensive review. Displays, 35, 18-26.
24. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14(4), 459-466.
25. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Price, C. A., Lee, H. S., & Malatesta, K. (2014). Stereoscopy in static scientific imagery in an informal education setting: Does it matter? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 721-734.
28. Price, C. A., Lee, H. S., Subbarao, M., Kasal, E., & Aguilera, J. (2015). Comparing short‐ and long‐term learning effects between stereoscopic and two‐dimensional film at a planetarium. Science Education, 99(6), 1118-1142.
29. Rule, A. C., Barrera, M. T., & Steward, R. A. (2004). Using descriptive adjective object boxes to improve science vocabulary. Montessori LIFE, Spring, 28-33.
30. Sato, T. & Suzuki, A. (2010). Do multimedia-oriented visual glosses really facilitate EFL vocabulary learning? A comparison of planar images with three-dimensional images. Asian EFL Journal, 12(4), 160-172.
31. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
32. Tavanti, M. & Lind, M. (2001). 2D vs. 3D: Implications on spatial memory. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, INFOVIS’01 (pp. 139-145). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.
33. Wen, G., Chang, H. C., Reinhold, J., Lo, J. Y., & Markey, M. K. (2018). Virtual assessment of stereoscopic viewing of digital breast tomosynthesis projection images. Journal of Medical Imaging, 5(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.015501
34. Wuerzburger, J. (2017). The impact of stereoscopic three-dimensional learning strategy on undergraduate technology students' procedural learning in information technology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA.
35. Yeh, Y. & Wang, C.-W. (2003). Effects of multimedia vocabulary annotations and learning styles on vocabulary learning. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 131-144.