Embodied Cognition or Abstract Representation? Testing Competing Accounts of Transparent and Opaque English Idiom Learning through Augmented Reality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65405/pv2ag479Keywords:
embodied cognition; abstract representation; idiom learning; augmented reality; Libyan EFL; opaque idioms; mixed ANOVA; Bayesian analysis; reproducible researchAbstract
This study compared two theories of idiom learning embodied cognition and abstract representation to examine how augmented reality (AR) affects the learning of transparent and opaque English idioms by Libyan EFL undergraduate students. A true experimental 2 × 2 mixed factorial design was used, with Learning Approach (embodied AR vs. abstract instruction) as the between-subjects factor and Idiom Type (transparent vs. opaque) as the within-subjects factor. A total of 108 students at B1–B2 proficiency levels were randomly assigned to one of two groups using concealed allocation. The embodied group learned 30 idioms through a marker-based AR application that presented 3D animated scenes and interactive learning experiences. The abstract group used the same application but received only definitions, translations, and example sentences without animation or interaction. Students were tested on idiom recognition, interpretation, and production immediately after instruction and again four weeks later. Mixed ANOVA results for the immediate post-test showed a significant interaction between learning approach and idiom type. The embodied AR group performed much better than the abstract group on opaque idioms (p < .001, d = 1.74, 95% CI [1.38, 2.10]), while the difference for transparent idioms was small. ANCOVA controlling for pre-test scores produced the same pattern of results. The delayed post-test showed that students who learned through embodied AR retained opaque idioms better over time. Confirmatory factor analysis using lavaan supported the validity of the research instruments. Assumption checks and Bayesian sensitivity analyses further confirmed the reliability of the findings. Overall, the results indicate that opaque idioms benefit greatly from sensory-motor learning experiences, supporting the embodied cognition account, whereas transparent idioms can be learned effectively through traditional symbolic instruction.
Downloads
References
• Al-Hammadi, F. S., & Sidek, H. M. (2018). Academic writing challenges encountered by Libyan EFL university students. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(4), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.4p.14
• Al-Houti, S. K., & Aldaihani, H. A. (2022). Idiom avoidance in L2 writing: The case of Arab EFL learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(2), 822–836. https://www.jlls.org
• Alhaysony, M. (2017). Strategies and difficulties of understanding English idioms: A case study of Saudi EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(3), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n3p70
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149
• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
• Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199161
• Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa
• Cai, S., Wang, X., & Chiang, F. K. (2022). A meta-analysis of augmented reality in K–12 and higher education language learning. Educational Research Review, 35, 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434
• Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2023). Eye-tracking L2 idiom processing: The role of transparency and context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000321
• Chen, C. M., & Tsai, Y. N. (2020). Interactive augmented reality game-based vocabulary learning. Computers & Education, 154, 103928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103928
• Chen, Y. L., & Hsu, C. C. (2020). Self-regulated mobile game-based English learning in a virtual reality environment. Computers & Education, 154, 103910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103910
• Chen, M. P., Liu, Y. L., & Huang, Y. M. (2020). Effects of augmented reality-based multidimensional concept maps on students’ learning achievement, motivation and acceptance. Universal Access in the Information Society, 19, 913–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00697-y
• Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 208–244). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342100.012
• Fernando, C. (1996). Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford University Press.
• Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Harvard University Press.
• Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 9–19. https://doi.org/10125/44475
• Günther, F., Rinaldi, L., & Marelli, M. (2022). Vector-space models of semantic representation: A critical overview. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 1214–1239. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02035-5
• Hsu, T. C. (2017). Learning English with augmented reality: Do learning styles matter? Computers & Education, 106, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.007
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
• Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
• Liao, Y., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2023). Avoidance of phrasal verbs and idioms: A longitudinal study of Chinese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 57(4), 1125–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3201
• Latif, M. B., & Saeid, S. A. M. (2026). The Impact of Teaching English Literature as an Elective Course to Fourth-Year ESL Students in a University Context. Al-Farooq Journal of Sciences, 2(3), 1166-1179.
• Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1103–1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1103
• Lin, V., & Yu, Y. T. (2023). Augmented reality in K–12 language education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 193, 104661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104661
• Macedonia, M., & Mueller, K. (2016). Exploring the neural representation of novel words learned through enactment in a word learning paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00953
• Macedonia, M., & Repetto, C. (2022). Why gesture aids vocabulary learning: A meta-analytic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 138, 104726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104726
• Norouzian, R., & Plonsky, L. (2018). Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary note and guide to more appropriate usage. Second Language Research, 34(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316684904
• Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Parmaxi, A., & Demetriou, A. A. (2022). Augmented reality in language learning: A state-of-the-art review. CALICO Journal, 39(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.41673
• Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
• Rhema, A., & Miliszewska, I. (2012). Towards e-learning in higher education in Libya. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 423–437. https://doi.org/10.28945/1680
• Steinel, M. P., Hulstijn, J. H., & Steinel, W. (2007). Second language idiom learning in a paired-associate paradigm: Effects of direction of learning, direction of testing, idiom imageability, and idiom transparency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(3), 449–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070271
• Sweller, N., Shinooka-Phelan, A., & Austin, E. E. (2023). Gesture and L2 vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 73(2), 522–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12528
• Taghizadeh, M., & Hajizadeh, S. (2023). Immersive technologies for L2 figurative language acquisition: A scoping review. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(8), 4802–4820. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2121730
• University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (2001). Quick Placement Test. Oxford University Press.
• Vasiljevic, Z. (2015). Teaching and learning idioms in L2: From theory to practice. MexTESOL Journal, 39(3), 1–24.
• Wen, J. M., Lee, C. C., Chen, C. H., & Huang, Y. M. (2019). Effects of an augmented reality-based mobile learning system on students’ learning achievements and motivation for English idioms. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1460388
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
• Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772
