4.5 Article

Real body versus 3D avatar: the effects of different embodied learning types on EFL listening comprehension

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-018-9569-y

关键词

Embodied cognition; Gesture-based learning; Virtual worlds; Avatar; English as a foreign language (EFL)

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. [NSC 101-2511-S-003-031-MY3, MOST 104-2911-I-003-301, MOST 105-2511-S-003 -018 -MY3, MOST 106-2511-S-003 -015 -MY3, MOST 103-2628-S-003-002-MY3]
  2. Chinese Language and Technology Center
  3. Higher Education Sprout Project'' of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) - Ministry of Education, Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study aimed at investigating how different types of embodied learnings influence elementary school students' English as a foreign language (EFL) listening performance. Two kinds of embodied learnings: real and physical body versus the 3D avatar, were compared with non-embodied learning. 69 fifth graders from two elementary schools participated in this study, and were randomly assigned into three groups (Kinect, Second Life, and paper). They learned the identical English phrases of doing sports by involving different types of embodied learnings. During the 11-week experiment, an identical EFL performance test was administered six times: before (once), during (3 times), and after (twice) the learning activities. The results depict that students learned better by watching their own 3D avatars doing motions than by moving their own bodies to produce the motions or doing nothing. Further analysis showed that the improvements made by those in the Second Life group were greater than those made by the participants in the other two groups when the performances of students with low achievement were compared. It was also found that learning by watching one self's avatar benefits both students with high- and low-achievement in EFL performance. Some suggestions for pedagogical applications and future research are also provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据