Visual Learners
The low number of cues selected by the students in the Visual group are shown in Figure 5.6. Their online time is indicated in Figure 6.1. Visual learners #1 and #5 spent the least time and made the fewest number of media choices of the study population. While one learner made only one graphic and neither video selection, the other viewed only one video and neither graphic item. Student #5 listened to the entire text three times and selected two pronunciation cues in addition to the video cue for a total of six media options. He did not look at any graphics nor did he select any definitions. Interestingly, his results on the PLS Inventory show a very low score in the auditory domain. Yet five of the six media cues he selected were auditory cues. Student #1 did not look at any videos and made one selection of each of the remaining media for a total of 4 choices. The scores of both of these learners remained the same from pre- to post-test.
Visual learners #9 and #12 and the kinesthetic learner, student #4, with a strong propensity in the visual domain, are other examples of students with very little media use. Student #9 selected 10 media items and was the only one in his group to have a decrease in score from pre-test to post-test. Student # 12 made 13 media selections and her score stayed the same. The kinesthetic learner had the same results and opted for 3 graphic, 2, video, 2 definition and 2 ěPlay this pageî for a total of 9 cues.
The data for those visual learners whose scores improved, students #6, #8 and #10, indicate a slight increase in time and media interaction compared to some of their counterparts. However, graphic and video options were not used to the extent of tactual and NP groups.
The fact that, overall, both visual and kinesthetic learners did not generate more visual (video and graphic) media interaction, indicates the need for greater teacher intervention. The studies cited in this paper suggested that such choices can be beneficial to this type of learner, to the older visual learner at any rate. However, this was neither proven nor disproved for the younger child as those in this study had very little interaction with the glosses. Their limited improvement, though, could be linked to the limited number of choices they made.
If, in fact, further research determines that these are optimal choices
for this learner profile, it brings to the forefront the need for guided
instruction and teacher intervention. Perhaps at this young age, they do
not have the maturity to make the choices that an adult would. Coaching
them about appropriate reading strategies related to their preferred modality
and cultivating their understanding of the importance and use of certain
types of media to assist with vocabulary recognition would help them understand
the relevance of image glosses and definition glosses. Furthermore, monitoring
their usage would increase chances of appropriate interaction with the
glosses.