Originally, this study intended to include an analysis of comprehension levels. As a test of overall comprehension, students wrote a recall protocol of the same texts used for the vocabulary assessment. However, subsequent analysis of the approach adopted for this study identified a number of conflicts which became evident during the procedure. As a result, the data collected for comprehension was not considered in this assessment. This decision was based mainly on two factors.

First, in contrast to vocabulary recognition, which involves learning on a micro-level, reading comprehension requires the construction of meaning at the macro-level. The work of Chun and Plass (1995) offers support to Schema Theory, which formalizes the role of background knowledge (advance organizers) in language comprehension. Their work cites much research supporting the use of ìvisual and pre-questioning activitiesî prior to the treatment to facilitate comprehension.

Further, they refer to Bernhardt (1986) who suggested conceptual factors were more important in predicting comprehension than linguistic competence. As a result, it was felt that the annotated media used in this study were more appropriately developed to assist bottom-up reading skills and, therefore, were more attuned to vocabulary recognition. Regrettably, the need for an advance organizer did not appear as evident in the design phase of the study.

Secondly, during the comprehension pre-test, students were permitted to refer to the text during the protocol. In the treatment, students did not have access to the text after the multimedia experience. This caused many of the students, in the first instance, to transcribe verbatim, sentences directly from the text or to not capsulate their ideas into a prose form. Future research should address these factors to include some form of advance organizer and more rigidly follow procedure from pre-test to treatment.
 

Return to home page