THE EFFECT OF
USING E-LEARNING TOOLS BASED ON VISUALIZATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING LATIN

O EFEITO DE UTILIZAR FERRAMENTAS DE
E-LEARNING BASEADAS NA VISUALIZAÇÃO NO ENSINO E APRENDIZAGEM DE LATIM

ABSTRACT:

The article deals with the problem of using
visualization in teaching and learning Latin. Both positive and negative
implementation aspects of a classic didactic principle of visualization are
analyzed in terms of e-learning. The experimental research aimed to carry out
the system of pedagogical impact by means of e-learning tools based on
visualization and evaluate the effect of using such tools on teaching and
learning Latin. The ways to minimize didactic risks that may result from
inappropriate (from psychological and educational points of view) use of visual
aids in e-learning tools are outlined. The necessity to keep up with the demand
for reasonable visualization sufficiency is shown. The pedagogical experiment
has proved the advantage using of e-learning tools based on visualization in
learning Latin by following criteria: motivation (indicators: focus and level
of academic motivation), cognition (indicators: quality and amount of
knowledge, academic performance), activity (indicators: mastering practical
skills, speed of execution of training tasks). The results of the pedagogical
experiment (including the comparison of the results of the experimental and
control groups) give the grounds to state that training veterinary students
with using e-learning tools based on
visualization is more effective than the traditional one.

Keywords: Visualization. E-learning tools. Professional
training. Latin.

RESUMO:

O artigo trata do problema de usar a visualização no ensino e aprendizagem
de latim. Aspectos de implementação positivos e negativos de um princípio
didático clássico de visualização são analisados ​​em termos de
e-learning. A pesquisa experimental teve como objetivo realizar o sistema de
impacto pedagógico por meio de ferramentas de e-learning baseadas na
visualização e avaliar o efeito do uso de tais ferramentas no ensino e
aprendizagem do latim. São descritas as maneiras de minimizar os riscos
didáticos que podem resultar do uso inadequado (do ponto de vista psicológico e
educacional) de recursos visuais nas ferramentas de e-learning. A necessidade
de acompanhar a demanda por suficiência razoável de visualização é mostrada. O
experimento pedagógico demonstrou a vantagem do uso de ferramentas de
e-learning baseadas na visualização no aprendizado de latim, mediante os
seguintes critérios: motivação (indicadores: foco e nível de motivação
acadêmica), cognição (indicadores: qualidade e quantidade de conhecimento,
desempenho acadêmico), atividade (indicadores: domínio das habilidades
práticas, velocidade de execução das tarefas de treinamento). Os resultados do
experimento pedagógico (incluindo a comparação dos resultados dos grupos
experimental e controle) fundamentam a afirmação de que o treinamento de
estudantes de veterinária com o uso de ferramentas de e-learning baseadas na
visualização é mais eficaz do que o tradicional.

Palavras-chave: Visualização.
Ferramentas de e-learning. Treinamento profissional.
Latim.

1
INTRODUСTION

Researchers have repeatedly
drawn attention to the fact that modern e-learning tools have advanced features
for better implementation of the didactic principle of visualization. The
feasibility of the use of such tools is determined, primarily, by the opportunity to use them for the visualization of educational
information, the formalization of knowledge about the objective world. However,
existing studies mainly focus on the benefits of e-learning tools as for the
implementation of the principle of visualization
comparing to the traditional ones. A large number of recent studies on the
subject have examined and a literature review is presented in the Theoretical
Background section. The literature review shows that previous research examined
the effects of visualization in science education, in
particular in teaching and learning biology, math, physics, chemistry, as well as living languages –
English, French, Chinese, etc. and only a few studies dealt with Latin. For this study, it was of interest to investigate the effect of
using e-learning tools based on visualization on teaching and learning Latin by
veterinary students. Specific research questions, hypotheses and criteria are
formulated in the Research Questions section. Details of basic research methodology (participants and
setting, design, data
collection procedures) are given in the Method section. Key findings of the study are described in the
Results and Analysis section and interpreted in light of previous research with a description of some limitations and open
questions for further research – in the Final Considerations one.

1.1
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In
this research, we understand visualization in the broad sense as “presentation
of pictures showing easy to recognize objects that are connected through
well-defined relations. It means the translation of mental, abstract, formal
concepts into images by looking and seeing objects and processes” (URSYN, 2018, p.1).

Visualization
is interpreted as an indicator of simplicity and clarity for the subject of a
mental image created in the process of perception and subsequent mental
processing of real objects; a tool based on visualization is considered as an
external support of internal actions carried out in the learning process.

According
to Gooding (2004, p.2), visual modes of representation are essential to the
generation, communication, and dissemination of new knowledge.

Popkov
and Korzhuev (2010), exploring the scientific basis of visualization principle
in universities, emphasize the need to include the activities related to
modeling, idealization, imaginary experimentation into the learning process.
Scholars point out that the teacher has visual tools at his disposal that would
provide an opportunity to show and find the very essential links and relations
between the objects and phenomena under study and the values that describe them
(not their individual minor manifestations), and the degree of influence of
various factors and conditions on the natural phenomenon under study.

Shah
and Freedman (2003) consider that the benefits of using visualization in
learning environments are: promoting learning by providing an external
representation of the information, deeper processing of information; maintaining
learner attention by making the information more attractive and motivating.

Shatri
& Buza (2017) proved, that the use of visualization in the teaching and
learning process has a positive influence in increasing and developing the
critical thinking of students.

Sankey,
Birch and Gardiner (2010, p.853) noted that:

the
increasing use of multimedia in teaching has provided many opportunities to
present multiple representations of content (text, video, audio, images,
interactive elements) to cater more effectively to
the different learning styles and modal preferences of an increasingly diverse
student body.

If
traditional learning visual aids required the specifics of the object under
study, then computer technologies use allows the dynamic interpretation of
essential properties not only of real objects, but also scientific laws,
theories, concepts. According to research (VOLOSHINOV, 2011), such multimedia
visualization allows creating a more progressive nature-like environment to
display educational content, its visual interactive modeling and research;
hypermedia architecture provides a person-focused, developing nature of
education. The extraordinary expressiveness and visual appeal of multimedia are
important in dealing with a new video-generation which easily absorbs knowledge
through the works of computer culture. It forms students' tendency to perceive,
to know the world through figurative and visual information presentation based
on ICT, the readiness to work in the information society. Multimedia visualization
is characterized by much greater informational density, the merge of conceptual
and visual that organically embraces both verbal and creative thinking.

Also,
e-tools provide the subjects of learning with the opportunity to perform
transforming activity with the objects of learning, to observe and analyze its
results, thus achieving a significant improvement of gnosticism models of
objects under study. Thus, the principle of visual aids using in the studies of
modern didacticians is interpreted not only with the availability of the object
under study to perceive via observation but is supplemented by the requirements
to attract the subject of learning to transform activity, accompanied by the
visualization of its results (LAPINSKY, 2009; MADZIHON et al., 2003).

Henderson
(1999, p.237) to help explain why visual representations are so powerful,
develops the concept of “metaindexicality” – the ability of visual
representation, used interactively, to combine many diverse levels of knowledge
and thus to serve as a meeting ground (and sometimes battleground) for many
types of workers.

Other
researchers believe that the damage from using multimedia tools in education is
more apparent than the benefit. According to Afanasjev (2006), any use of
visual aids in education is harmful when they replace students’ independent
imagination and thinking. The overuse of visual aids can cultivate
“comics-thinking”. In general, visual aids often initiate not the intellect but
emotions, and therefore, they are convenient means of imposing opinions from
the outside, while the education goal is to teach students to do it on their
own. Useful visual aids should not replace, but rather initiate both
imagination and human intelligence, expand and enrich the current experience.
The researcher brings up an issue of whether modern ICT can involve a person
into experience, which is hard to get, and in this way to make the person more
developed, to expand the scope of independent thinking.

Didactic
risks of visualization principle are the most predictable and are mentioned in
the works of many contemporary scholars. While analyzing the e-learning tools
the attention was repeatedly drawn to the typical overuse of visualization at
the price of its content, semantic plan substitution with illustrations,
eye-catching techniques, animation. The redundancy of illustrative component
dissipates students' attention, distracts them from tracking the logic of
content deployment.

So,
using visualization in teaching and learning remains an open problem in the
area. A number of questions regarding the use of e-learning tools based on
visualization remain to be addressed.

Ursyn
et al. (2016) researched knowledge
visualization and visual literacy in science education, in particular in biology,
math, digital media, and music; Janitor et
al. (2010) examined the use of visual learning tools for teaching and
learning computer networks, Volohsinov (2011) – for algorithmic training,
Arcavi (2003) – the role of visual representations in the learning of math,
Eilks et al. (2012) – the role of
visualization and its potential danger for teaching and learning
chemistry.

And
although many scholars (FAHIM and VAEZI, 2011; HASHEMI and POURGHARIB, 2013; KOLODII
et al., 2017; HSIAO et al., 2017; SADEGHI and FARZIZADEH,
2013) have studied the use of visualization in foreign language teaching and
learning, most of these studies dealt with living foreign languages.

Despite
the large numbers of studies examining various aspects of ICT use in teaching
and learning Latin, only a few studies to date have focused on using
visualization in this field, among which we should mention the work devoted
reading proficiency in Latin through expectations and visualization (MARKUS;
ROSS, 2004), and research of improving engagement and accuracy with the
visualization of Latin for language learning (ZHOU, 2015). In particular, Zhou
developed a special tool Ingenium, an interactive visual representation of
grammatical concepts in Latin that focuses on grammatical forms over word
order, redirecting students’ attention from the meanings and functions of words
in isolation to the grammatical interactions among all words in a sentence. And
after an experiment, the researcher concluded that using Ingenium “not only
improves students’ understanding and translating of Latin sentences through its
visual emphasis on grammatical concepts and structures, but also increases
student engagement by providing a dynamic environment for experimentation” (ZHOU,
2015, p.69).  These ideas were developed
in other work by Zhou,
Livingston, Schiefsky, Shieber,
Gajos (2016), adapted Ingenium to be used for two standard classroom activities:
sentence translations and fill-in-the-blank exercises. To our knowledge, no prior studies have
examined the use of e-learning tools based on visualization in teaching
and learning Latin in professional training.

1.2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The
purpose of the experimental research work was to carry out the system of
pedagogical impact by means of e-learning tools based on visualization and
evaluate the effect of using such tools on teaching and learning Latin by
veterinary students.

The following criteria have been established for the effectiveness of
learning:

·
motivation
(indicators: focus and level of academic motivation),

·
cognition
(indicators: quality and amount of knowledge academic performance),

·
activity
(indicators: mastering practical skills, speed of execution of training tasks).

This
study aims to answer the following research questions:

Q1: Does the use of e-learning tools based on visualization have a
significant impact on the motivation of veterinary students in studying Latin?

Q2:
Does the use of e-learning tools based on visualization have a significant
impact on the cognition of veterinary students in studying Latin?

Q3:
Does the use of e-learning tools based on visualization have a significant
impact on the activity of veterinary students in studying Latin?

Q4: Is
there a statistically significant difference in academic performances on Latin
of students trained in traditional ways and students trained with a technique,
providing for the complex use of traditional and e-learning tools, based on
visualization?

Therefore, the main research hypothesis was:

H0: The use of e-learning
tools based on visualization has no effect on teaching and learning
Latin by veterinary students.

It was specified in the following working
hypotheses:

H01: The use
of e-learning tools based on visualization doesn’t have any significant impact
on the motivation of veterinary students in studying Latin.

H02: The use
of e-learning tools based on visualization doesn’t have any significant impact
on the cognition in studying Latin.

H03: The use
of e-learning tools based on visualization doesn’t have any significant impact
on the activity in studying Latin.

H04: There
is no significant difference in academic performances on Latin of students
trained in traditional ways and students trained with a technique, providing
for the complex use of traditional and e-learning tools, based on
visualization.

2
Method

To
evaluate the effectiveness of e-learning tools based on visualization the
pedagogical experiment was conducted in three Ukrainian agrarian universities:
National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine (Kyiv), Podilsky State Agrarian and Technical University (Kamyanets-Podilsky), Poltava State Agrarian Academy
(Poltava).

2.1
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

The
experiment lasted 4 years (from 2016 to 2019) and consisted of three stages. At
the first stage, we examined the status and trends in teaching with using
e-learning tools in agrarian universities, diagnosed students’ needs on the use
of e-learning tools and defined experimental and control groups. A total 247 veterinary
students (109 male and 138 female) from Ukrainian agrarian universities
participated in the experiment. 6 teachers (2 senior lecturers and 4 associate
professors) were involved in experimental work. Defining the research problem,
methodology, experimental design, developing instruments, data collection and
analysis were carried out by the author in the framework of Ph.D. thesis (BALALAIEVA,
2016).

At the beginning of the experiment, there were not any considerable
differences between levels of indicators among students of the control and
experimental groups, because they did not have a background and prior knowledge
in the Latin (this language is not studied in schools in Ukraine), that made it
possible to ensure the homogeneity of the group composition.

At the
second stage, under the experimental conditions, students of the control group
(n=124) were trained in traditional ways; students of the experimental group
(n=123) were trained with a new technique, providing for the complex use of
traditional learning tools, some online resources and software as well as
special e-textbook «Elementa Linguae Latinae», based
on visualization. Online resources and software were selected by such criteria
as accuracy, credibility, reasonableness, support, interactivity, aesthetics, accessibility,
communicative, pragmatic and cognitive value (BALALAIEVA, 2019).

The
e-textbook “Elementa Linguae Latinae” was designed
taking into account major principles of teaching Latin at the Faculty of
Veterinarian Medicine, objective factors (students’ provision of learning
materials, academic performance and motivation, normatively defined goals with
defined priorities in developing competencies) and subjective factors (student
preferences). Its purpose, tasks, macro- and microstructure, interface are
described in detail in the previous author’s articles (BALALAIEVA, 2016; 2017),

One
of an important feature of this e-textbook is the consistent use of cognitive
visualization tools in the delivery of the training material, such as
cognitive-graphic models, schemes, etc. (see figure 1).

Figure 1 – Example of task on Latin based on the visualization

The
use of cognitive visualization techniques is relevant specifically for
electronic guides designed to help master the discipline and provide solutions
to local pedagogical problems: supplementing the material of the basic
textbook, repeating and systematizing the acquired knowledge, providing
additional or reference information on a specific topic, etc.

At the third stage,
quantitative and qualitative analysis of empirical data were carried out,
results of the research were systematized and generalized.

2.2
DATA COLLECTION

The experiment was conducted under the conditions of a
real educational process, all samples are based on homogeneous student
contingent, the classes in control and experimental groups were given by the
same teachers by single work program, measurements in control and experimental
groups were carried out synchronously with unified instruments and were
evaluated on the same criteria, that in the complex contributed to ensuring the
reliability of the results of experimental research. In general, the
reliability of the results of research is ensured by the theoretical
reasonableness of the research positions, the application of a complex of valid
methods that are adequate to its purpose and objectives, quantitative and
qualitative analysis of theoretical material and empirical data,
mathematical-statistical methods for processing and interpretation of the
results of the formative stage of the experiment.

The
instrument to examine the motivational orientation in the learning Latin was
developed based on Dubovitskaya (2002) methodology of
diagnosis of focus and levels (low, medium, high) of educational motivation,
intended for all categories of students older than 12. It was modified and
adapted to the conditions of the current experiment. The developed survey
consisted of 20 items. The pilot survey was conducted in a representative group
(n=12). Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement or
disagreement with statements on a 4-point Likert scale: strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, and strongly agree. Item reliability has been assessed by
calculating Cronbach’s alpha (α=0.82, SPSS). After revising problematic items a survey (Appendix A) was proposed to students at the
beginning and at the end of the experiment. Data were correlated. The results
are described below (see Results).

Also,
students of experimental and control groups were evaluated through a system of
standardized achievement tests in the Latin language. Based on the results of
the three tests (by different modules), the student average scores were
calculated, which formed the basis of two independent samples (total sample
size – 247). To test the hypothesis about the coincidence of the
characteristics of the two groups, in particular, to determine whether there is
a significant difference between the values of indicators of academic progress
of students in control and experimental groups, as these differences are reliable
and whether they could be extrapolated to the whole population t-test was
applied.

To
evaluate the learning effectiveness, the methodology of Bespalko
(1999) for determining the coefficient of mastering the educational material (Ka) with standard values for
3 levels: low (Ka <
0.7), medium (0.7 ≤ Ka
< 0.85), high (0,85 ≤ Ka
≤ 1) was used. The measurement of the speed of execution of training
tasks was carried out according to the actual time required for a student to
complete one test. To determine the levels of test execution speed (Vt) following limits were
accepted: low (Vt ≥
80 min), medium (60 min < Vt
< 80 min), high Vt <
60 min. Data reliability was checked by using statistical analysis with
Pearson’s chi-squared test.

3
Results and analysis

Comparative analysis of the dynamics of educational motivation showed
that the difference in the growth of the number of students with dominating
intrinsic motives is 10.4% for the experimental group. It is proved that
positive changes have occurred in the redistribution of motivation levels: in
experimental group number of students with a low level of motivation decreased
by 1.4%, with a high level of motivation increased by 9.4%; in control one the
number of students with a low level of motivation decreased by 0.4%, with high
level increased by 0.8% (figure 2).

Figure 2 – Comparative diagram of the distribution of intrinsic
motivation levels in the control and experimental groups at the beginning and
end of the experiment

To test the hypothesis about the coincidence of the characteristics of
the two groups, in particular, to determine whether there is a significant
difference between the significant values of indicators of academic progress of
students in control and experimental groups, as these differences are reliable
and whether they could be extrapolated to the whole generation was applied t-test (Appendix B). The positive
difference in learning was ascertained in the experimental group: the number of
students with medium and high levels of academic progress increased. In
particular, the number of students with low progress in the experimental group
is 14.2% less than in the control one, but the number of students with medium
and high levels of academic progress higher by 9.2% and 5% respectively (see figure
3).

Figure 3 – Comparative diagram of levels of academic progress in the
control and experimental groups

In general, by the results of the statistical analysis, the average
score in the experimental group is 0.51 higher than in the control one.

Table 1 –  Data on test results in control and
experimental groups

Test 1

Test
2

Test
3

Average

Cg*

Eg**

Cg

Eg

Cg

Eg

Cg

Eg

GPA

5,0

5,37

4,81

5,45

5,10

5,64

4,97

5,48

Dispersion

2,32

2,09

2,29

2,46

2,25

2,00

2,28

2,18

Coefficient
of variation

0,3

0,27

0,31

0,28

0,28

0,24

0,29

0,26

Cg* - control group

Eg** - experimental group

Also it was determined that most of the students both in control and
experimental groups demonstrated low speed of execution of training tasks; but
in experimental group the number of students with medium speed of execution of
training tasks is 9.2% greater than in control one, as well 6.4% of
students showed a high speed of execution of training tasks (see figure 4).

Figure 4 – Comparative diagram of levels of speed of execution of
training tasks in the control and experimental groups

It was found that the overall speed of execution of
training tasks in the experimental group is 7.8% higher than in the control one
(reliability is confirmed by using statistical analysis with Pearson’s
chi-squared test in Appendix C).

The results of the pedagogical experiment give the
grounds to state that training veterinary students with using e-learning tools
based on visualization is more effective than traditional one.

4
final considerationS

Thus,
the experiment has proved the positive statistically significant effect of
using e-learning tools based on visualization on teaching and learning Latin by all criteria: motivation,
cognition and activity. The null hypothesis H0,
stating that the use of e-learning
tools based on visualization has no effect on teaching and learning Latin
by veterinary students was rejected.

The results of this study are in line with the findings of a research
performed by Zhou (2015), who conducted the experiment with 67 beginning Latin
students, measuring objective emotional and cognitive engagement, learning,
change in self-efficacy, cognitive load, accuracy in sentence translation and concluded,
that students when using interactive visual tool reported considerably higher
levels of engagement and learning, opted to perform more optional problems, and
completed translation exercises with substantially greater accuracy than when
using the traditional interface.

In particular, positive change dynamics have been
discovered in learning motivation focus and in intrinsic motivation levels
redistribution. These findings allow us to reject the hypothesis H01: the use of e-learning tools based on visualization doesn’t
have any significant impact on the motivation of veterinary students in
studying Latin. This result ties well with previous studies demonstrating a positive
influence of visualization in students’ motivation both in science education (SANKEY
et al., 2010; EILKS et al., 2014; URSYN, 2016; SHATRI
& BUZA, 2017) and foreign languages teaching and learning (HASHEMI
& POURGHARIB, 2013; SADEGHI et al., 2013; HSIAO et al.,
2017; KOLODII et al., 2017).

Concerning Latin, Zhou (2015) proved that visual tools can increase
student emotional and cognitive engagement with grammar, Markus and Ross (2004)
– with reading. In the same line, Zhou et
al. (2016) showed that students reported a greater positive change in
self-efficacy related to Latin grammar and reading comprehension after using
tools based on visualization than after using the traditional text-only
versions of the exercises. Self-efficacy,
or task-related confidence, is an effective predictor of motivation (ZHOU et al., 2016, p.12)

The results of the analysis by cognitive criterion allow us to reject
the hypothesis H02: the use of e-learning tools based on
visualization doesn’t have any significant impact on the cognition in studying
Latin. This result is consistent with research by Zhou et al. (2016) showing that students reported reflecting more on the
grammar of the sentences when using interactive visual tool than when solving
the traditional text-only versions of the exercises. In the previous work Zhou
(2015, p.60) showed that participants reported approximately equal levels of
cognitive load in the experimental and control conditions.

Also, it was found that the
overall speed of execution of training tasks and accuracy in terminological translation in the experimental
group was higher than in the
control one and this difference was statistically
significant, that allows us to reject the
hypothesis H03: the use of
e-learning tools based on visualization doesn’t have any significant impact on
the activity in studying Latin. A similar conclusion was reached by Zhou (2015, p. 3), stating that students, when using visual tool Ingenium, completed
translation exercises with substantially greater accuracy than when using the traditional
interface.

The effectiveness of e-learning tools using has been proved by a
statistically significant increasing academic performance in experimental
groups (in general, the average score in the experimental array is 0.51 higher
than in the control one).  So, hypothesis H04, stating that there is no significant
difference in academic performances on Latin of students trained in traditional
ways and students trained with a technique, providing for the complex use of
traditional and e-learning tools, based on visualization, was also
rejected.  These results are in
accordance with findings reported by Zhou (2015), proving that students
reported a higher level of learning Latin in the experimental conditions when
using interactive visual tool.

But why the difference between the indicators of the
control and experimental groups on cognition and activity criteria was
significant but not as large as expected? There are many reasons for
this.

In our opinion, the potential of modern e-learning
tools not only allow the implementation of visualization principle on a whole
new level but also significantly increase the didactic risks of its realization
(BALALAIEVA, 2016).

Ageyev and Drevs (2003) point out the following disadvantages e-learning
tools: users hold a dialogue through the display in a static working position,
in the conditions of time shortage, which requires higher attention
concentration and intense mental activity in the process of multi-dimensionless
analysis of display formats and processing algorithms of visual information
arrays, that are large in size and different in structure.

The objective shortcomings of computer learning tools
(the need to have a computer with respective software and to be able to work on
it; the difficulty to perceive large arrays of textual material from the
screen; the lack of interactivity of computer learning tools) are often
accompanied by subjective disadvantages caused by the conceptual errors in the
design of certain e-learning tools.

The ergonomic requirements for e-learning tools
determine the necessity to consider the age and the individual characteristics
of users, different ways of thinking and nervous activity organization, and the
patterns of intellectual and emotional rehabilitation. To reduce the load on
visual analyzers while designing an e-learning tool it is necessary to consider
physiological and ergonomic requirements for material visualization (colors,
the spatial layout of information on the screen, the organization of
alphanumeric characters, and symbols on the screen, image legibility and
resolution, etc.).

Equally important is the danger which lies in
pedagogically unjustified use of modern information technologies. According to
Robert (2010), it is more common than sanitary rules violations.

The use of e-learning tools, developed with the
violation of design-ergonomic and hygiene requirements, put the physical and
mental health of users at risk.

The researchers note that attempts to interest via
excessive use of animation and gaming tools do not achieve the desired goal
primarily due to the “contrast effect” (AGEEV and DREVS, 2003, p. 120), when
the student is familiar with dynamic computer games and simulators and expects
the same dynamics from the e-learning tools.

The desire to make e-textbook bright and eye-catching
out of ignorance of basic rules of font science, chromatics, composition,
design leads to the opposite effect – it complicates the perception and
understanding of information (sometimes to complete unreadableness). We also
note that e-learning tools often use ready-made illustrative materials from
different databases, resulting in that the manual includes various pictures,
photos, video clips of questionable didactic potential; they are all different
in technique, quality and purpose. Illustrative material should not contain
extra information that distracts the students from absorbing the knowledge; the
same-type illustration should be performed in the same technique.

Researchers (LAPINSKY, 2009) set out the
requirements for software and computer systems of educational purpose that
complement and extend the principle of visualization:

·
tools
should contain such a visual model of the object that best contributes to the
learning goal, without excessive details or simplifying the overall image plans;

·
a
model should be presented in a form that allows most clearly identify and
distinguish links and relationships components of an object;

·
cognition
(stimulation of guessing) of educational material with visual aids should be
implemented so as to enable the teacher to use the methods of active learning,
and to make the learning process really interactive;

·
gnosticism of presenting educational models cannot be a goal
in itself: it is necessary to use models of objects under study that do not
present knowledge in a completed form but include research, the independent
cognitive activity of students, encouraging their skills for such activities.

Scholars (MADZIHON et
al., 2003) believe that modern understanding of visualization principle
with using educational software creates significant didactic prerequisites for
success in learning through emotional inclusion, gnosticism,
the visualization of the information perception process, a dosage of
multimodality of educational influences that encourage voluntary attention and
use suggestive memory, individualization of educational information
presentation pace. When creating and analyzing visual models, the subjects of
learning have to undergo phases of scientific knowledge – to carry out system
decomposition, the analysis of its components, the selection of essential
features of objects and essential connections between them – with the
subsequent determination of model’s structure or the object and its synthesis.

Thus, the major advantages of e-learning tools for the
implementation visualization principle are: the opportunity of abstract
visual-figurative interpretation of essential properties of real objects,
scientific laws, theories, concepts, providing a poly-sensorial perception of
educational information, and the opportunity to carry out the transforming
activity with objects or their models. However, the potentials of modern
e-learning tools not only allow the implementation of the visualization
principle on a whole new level but also significantly increase the didactic
risk of its realization. To prevent such risks while designing the e-learning
tools it is necessary to be guided by the requirement of reasonable
visualization sufficiency – a necessary optimal minimum of illustrative
material which has to be determined individually for each tool, depending on
its purpose, functions in the learning process, target audience etc.

Despite all disadvantages and risks, we agree with
modern researches (URSYN, 2018), that visual approach to learning is objective
necessary today and fully share following opinion:

notwithstanding
individual differences in intelligence and learning style,
this generation of children needs to be taught the way they learn best – with
visual stimulation accompanied by active learning strategies. As educators, we
need to prepare our students for the world in which they will live and work. We
must allow this understanding of the visual nature of
our students to influence our teaching techniques and the educational
technologies we employ (GANGWER, 2015, p. 4).

In summary, the importance of this study is that it
contributes to teaching and learning Latin in professional training by
introducing the innovative research-based technique, providing for the complex
use of traditional and e-learning tools, based on visualization.

The ways to minimize didactic risks that may result
from inappropriate (from psychological and educational points of view) use of
visual aids in e-learning tools are outlined.

The practical findings of this work were discussed and implemented into the educational
process of Podilsky State Agrarian and Technical
University (Certificate No. 75-01-388), Poltava State Agrarian Academy (Certificate No.
01-06/73), National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine (BALALAIEVA,
2016).

Although the research has reached its aims, there were
some unavoidable limitations. First, the experiment was conducted only in
Ukrainian agrarian universities.

To make a greater contribution to practical experience
the result should be compared with similar studies in different countries, because
our findings may not be applicable to other universities.

Second,
the sample size was large enough for our local study, but it may be too small
and non-representative for the larger population. Also, the sample was too
homogeneous (all participants were students of the same faculty of veterinary
medicine) and may not be representative of students at other faculties.

Finally,
the study was focused on Latin language teaching; this methodology is rather
specific and has certain limitations in the formation of linguistic
competencies in comparison with teaching live foreign languages that involve
active communicative activity.

Further
research should have a greater number of participants of different ages, from
different faculties and universities and be conducted based on different
languages to yield more generalizable results.

REFERENCES

AFANASJEV, Yuri N. Through forms to meanings: a new model
of university education. Moscow:
RGGU, 2006. 224 p.

AGEEV, V. N.; DREVS, Ju. G. Electronic editions for educational purposes: concept, creation,
use. Moscow: MGUP, 2003. 235 p.

ARCAVI, A. The role of visual representations in the
learning of mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, v. 52,
p. 215–241, 2003. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024312321077

BALALAIEVA,
O. Analysis of theoretical and methodological approaches to design of
electronic textbooks for students of higher agricultural educational
institutions. Information Technologies
and Learning Tools, Kyiv, v. 59,
n. 4, p. 39-50, 2017. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v59i3.1663

BALALAIEVA, O. Yu. Design of electronic textbooks in Latin language for higher
agricultural educational institutions. 2016. 269 f. Doctoral dissertation
(Ph.D. in Pedagogy) – Institute of Information Technologies and Learning Tools
of NAPS of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, 2016.

BALALAIEVA, O. Online resources and software for
teaching and learning Latin. Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia, Belo Horizonte, v. 12, n. (3), p. 93-108, 2019.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/1983-3652.12.3.93-108

BALALAIEVA,
O. Structural and organizational procedural characteristics of electronic
educational resources design. Information
Technologies and Learning Tools, Kyiv, v. 54, n. 4, p. 108–118, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v54i4.1441

BESPALKO,
V. P. Components of pedagogical
technology. Moscow: Pedagog, 1999. 192 p.

DUBOVITSKAYA,
T. Methods of diagnosis of orientation of educational motivation. Psychological Science and Education, Moscow,
v. 2, p. 42–46, 2002.

EILKS, I., et
al. The role and potential danger of visualisation
when learning about sub-microscopic explanations in chemistry education. CEPS Journal, Ljubljana, v. 2, n. 1, p. 125–145, 2012.

FAHIM, M.; VAEZI, R. Investigating the effect
of visually-enhanced input on the acquisition of lexical collocations by
Iranian intermediate EFL learners: A case of noun-verb lexical collocations. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, v.
2, n. 3, p. 552–560, 2011.

GANGWER, T. Shifting to visual teaching. International Conference of creativity,
Thinking & Education, April 18–20, 2015 at the University of St. Thomas
in Minnesota, 2015, p. 4.

GOODING, D. Visualization, inference and explanation
in the sciences. In GRANT MALCOLM (Ed.), Studies
in Multidisciplinarity, 2, 2004. Elsevier B. V. p.
1–25 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-0831(04)80029-7

HASHEMI, M.; POURGHARIB, B. The effect of visual
instruction on new vocabularies learning.
International Journal of Basic
Science and Applied Research, v. 2,
n. 6, p. 623–627, 2013.

HENDERSON, K. On
line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture and computer graphics
in design engineering, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1999. 243 p.

HSIAO, I. Y. T.; LAN, Y.-J.; KAO C.-L.; LI, P. Visualization
analytics for second language vocabulary learning in virtual worlds. Educational Technology & Society, Douliu City, v. 20, n. 2, p. 161–175,
2017.

JANITOR, J. et
al. Visual learning tools for teaching/learning computer networks, Cisco Networking Academy and Packet Tracer
6th International conference on networking and services, 2010. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNS.2010.55

KOLODII,
O.; KOVALCHUK I.; SYVAK O. The impact of visualization techniques on student’s
learning vocabulary. International Journal
of New Economics and Social Sciences, Warszawa, v. 6, n. 2, p. 359-367,
2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.7649

LAPINSKY, V.V. Visual principle and development of
e-learning tools. National Education, v.
3, p. 42–48, 2009.

MADZIHON, V. M., DOROSHENKO, JU. O. &
LAPINSKY, V. V. Pedagogical aspects of creating and using e-learning
tools. Problems of Modern Textbook, Kyiv,
4, p. 70–82, 2003.

MARKUS,
D. D. & ROSS D. P. Reading proficiency in Latin through expectations and
visualization. The Classical World, Baltimore, v. 98, n. 1,
79-93, autumn, 2004. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4352905

POPKOV, V. A.; KORZHUEV, A. V. Didactics of high school. Moscow: Academy, 2010. 132 p.

ROBERT, I. Modern
information technologies in education: didactic problems, prospects of use.
Moscow: Institute of Іnformatization of Education, 2010. 140 p.

SADEGHI, K.; FARZIZADEH, B. The effect of
visually-supported vocabulary instruction on beginning EFL learners' vocabulary
gain. MEXTESOL Journal, v. 37, n. 1,
p. 1–12. 2013.

SANKEY, M.; BIRCH, D.; GARDINER, M. Engaging students
through multimodal learning environments: The journey continues. In C.H. STEEL;
M.J. KEPPELL; P. GERBIC; S. HOUSEGO (Eds.),
Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney, 2010, p. 852-863.

SHAH, P.; FREEDMAN, E. G. Visuospatial cognition in
electronic learning. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, v. 29, n. 3, p. 315–324, 2003.

SHATRI, K.; BUZA, K. The
use of visualization in teaching and learning process for developing critical
thinking of students. European Journal
of Social Sciences Education and Research, v. 4, n. 1, p. 71–74, 2017.

URSYN,
A. (ed.). Knowledge Visualization and
Visual Literacy in Science Education.
Hershey PA: IGI Global, 2016. 431 p.

URSYN,
A. (ed.). Visual Approaches to Cognitive
Education with Technology Integration. Hershey PA: IGI Global, 2018. 387
p.

VOLOSHINOV, S. A. The implementation of the
didactic principle of visualization in algorithmic training students by means
of information and communication educational environment. Information technology in education, v. 10, p. 173–182, 2011.

ZHOU,
S. Engineering Ingenium:
Improving engagement and accuracy with the visualization of Latin for language
learning. 2015. 199 f. Bachelor's thesis (Classical Languages and
Literatures and Computer Science) – Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2015.

ZHOU,
S.; LIVINGSTON, I.; SCHIEFSKY, M.; SHIEBER, S.; GAJOS. K. Ingenium: Engaging Novice Students with Latin Grammar. Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), San Jose, CA,
May 7-12, 2016.

Appendices

Appendix
A. Survey on motivational orientation of students in learning Latin

Item

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly

agree

I need Latin
for my future profession.

+

I see no
prospect of studying dead language; in practice I do not need it.

+

I believe that
the Latin language course is required at any medical faculty.

+

There is no
need for academic subject "Latin language" because Latin
terminology is studied at lectures and lab works on special subjects.

+

The Latin is interesting to me, and I want to know as much as possible
about it.

+

Latin grammar
and exercises are uninteresting to me; I do them, because the teacher
requires it.

+

Knowledge that
I get in Latin classes is enough for me.

+

The desire to
pass an examination and receive grants is a main stimulus of studying Latin
for me.

+

I believe that
theoretical issues of this subject could not be studied.

+

Difficulties
in learning Latin do it more interesting for me.

+

I do all the tasks by myself, I do not like when somebody
helps me.

+

I can do tasks
by myself, but I have to force myself to do it.

+

When it’s
possible, I try to crib colleagues’ answers or ask them do the works for me.

+

If I did not
understand the material in class, I do not try to
learn it by myself.

+

I’m upset when
I am not prepared for Latin classes or miss them.

+

If I had the
opportunity to choose subjects for study, I would choose Latin.

+

It doesn’t
matter what discipline to study for me, I try to be
the best among students.

+

Auxiliary
explanations of difficult cases in Latin grammar could be raised my interest
in this subject.

+

I often do not
understand teacher explanations and am ashamed to ask again, although I wish to know as much as possible.

+

I read more
books and use online resources to better understand Latin grammar and
terminology.

+

Appendix
B. Results of t-test

Control group

Experimental
group

Student number

GPA

Deviation

Std. deviation

GPA

Deviation

Std. deviation

1

6.2

1.23

1.5129

8.1

2.62

6.8644

2

5.7

0.73

0.5329

4.4

-1.08

1.1664

3

4.3

-0.67

0.4489

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

4

5.2

0.23

0.0529

3.5

-1.98

3.9204

5

4.1

-0.87

0.7569

4.0

-1.48

2.1904

6

7.2

2.23

4.9729

8.0

2.52

6.3504

7

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

7.0

1.52

2.3104

8

6.2

1.23

1.5129

4.2

-1.28

1.6384

9

3.8

-1.17

1.3689

6.2

0.72

0.5184

10

6.4

1.43

2.0449

3.8

-1.68

2.8224

11

2.5

-2.47

6.1009

6.1

0.62

0.3844

12

5.9

0.93

0.8649

3.9

-1.58

2.4964

13

4.6

-0.37

0.1369

7.2

1.72

2.9584

14

6.1

1.13

1.2769

3.8

-1.68

2.8224

15

7.5

2.53

6.4009

6.9

1.42

2.0164

16

3.2

-1.77

3.1329

5.7

0.22

0.0484

17

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

18

7.7

2.73

7.4529

4.9

-0.58

0.3364

19

6.5

1.53

2.3409

4.8

-0.68

0.4624

20

3.2

-1.77

3.1329

6.2

0.72

0.5184

21

4.5

-0.47

0.2209

6.8

1.32

1.7424

22

4.7

-0.27

0.0729

3.5

-1.98

3.9204

23

5.7

0.73

0.5329

4.4

-1.08

1.1664

24

5.7

0.73

0.5329

6.5

1.02

1.0404

25

2.4

-2.57

6.6049

3.8

-1.68

2.8224

26

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

3.5

-1.98

3.9204

27

4.7

-0.27

0.0729

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

28

6.5

1.53

2.3409

3.5

-1.98

3.9204

29

6.4

1.43

2.0449

8.3

2.82

7.9524

30

3.8

-1.17

1.3689

7.2

1.72

2.9584

31

3.7

-1.27

1.6129

4.8

-0.68

0.4624

32

3.6

-1.37

1.8769

3.6

-1.88

3.5344

33

7.3

2.33

5.4289

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

34

7.2

2.23

4.9729

2.5

-2.98

8.8804

35

4.8

-0.17

0.0289

6.9

1.42

2.0164

36

3.6

-1.37

1.8769

4.7

-0.78

0.6084

37

5.2

0.23

0.0529

6.5

1.02

1.0404

38

2.5

-2.47

6.1009

6.4

0.92

0.8464

39

6.9

1.93

3.7249

3.8

-1.68

2.8224

40

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

3.7

-1.78

3.1684

41

5.2

0.23

0.0529

3.6

-1.88

3.5344

42

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

7.2

1.72

2.9584

43

7.2

2.23

4.9729

5.6

0.12

0.0144

44

5.6

0.63

0.3969

6.0

0.52

0.2704

45

5

0.03

0.0009

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

46

5.2

0.23

0.0529

5.5

0.02

0.0004

47

5.5

0.53

0.2809

6.2

0.72

0.5184

48

6.2

1.23

1.5129

4.4

-1.08

1.1664

49

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

7.2

1.72

2.9584

50

5.2

0.23

0.0529

5.4

-0.08

0.0064

51

3.6

-1.37

1.8769

7.5

2.02

4.0804

52

2.6

-2.37

5.6169

6.5

1.02

1.0404

53

7.3

2.33

5.4289

6.8

1.32

1.7424

54

7.0

2.03

4.1209

7.1

1.62

2.6244

55

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

3.7

-1.78

3.1684

56

6.2

1.23

1.5129

4.4

-1.08

1.1664

57

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

7.3

1.82

3.3124

58

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

7.9

2.42

5.8564

59

2.7

-2.27

5.1529

5.7

0.22

0.0484

60

5.5

0.53

0.2809

3.6

-1.88

3.5344

61

3.6

-1.37

1.8769

4.5

-0.98

0.9604

62

6.1

1.13

1.2769

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

63

5.7

0.73

0.5329

4.1

-1.38

1.9044

64

2.4

-2.57

6.6049

7.3

1.82

3.3124

65

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

6.2

0.72

0.5184

66

4.7

-0.27

0.0729

7.9

2.42

5.8564

67

6.5

1.53

2.3409

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

68

6.8

1.83

3.3489

6.9

1.42

2.0164

69

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

7.1

1.62

2.6244

70

4.1

-0.87

0.7569

5.7

0.22

0.0484

71

5.4

0.43

0.1849

3.9

-1.58

2.4964

72

7.2

2.23

4.9729

3.5

-1.98

3.9204

73

5.5

0.53

0.2809

4.6

-0.88

0.7744

74

3.8

-1.17

1.3689

4.5

-0.98

0.9604

75

6.9

1.93

3.7249

5.2

-0.28

0.0784

76

5.7

0.73

0.5329

4.5

-0.98

0.9604

77

2.7

-2.27

5.1529

7.6

2.12

4.4944

78

4.9

-0.07

0.0049

6.2

0.72

0.5184

79

4.8

-0.17

0.0289

7.9

2.42

5.8564

80

6.2

1.23

1.5129

4.1

-1.38

1.9044

81

6.8

1.83

3.3489

6.6

1.12

1.2544

82

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

7.5

2.02

4.0804

83

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

6.3

0.82

0.6724

84

5.4

0.43

0.1849

3.9

-1.58

2.4964

85

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

5.4

-0.08

0.0064

86

5.2

0.23

0.0529

7.9

2.42

5.8564

87

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

6.5

1.02

1.0404

88

3.0

-1.97

3.8809

6.8

1.32

1.7424

89

8.0

3.03

9.1809

7.1

1.62

2.6244

90

7.0

2.03

4.1209

3.6

-1.88

3.5344

91

4.2

-0.77

0.5929

4.5

-0.98

0.9604

92

6.2

1.23

1.5129

5.9

0.42

0.1764

93

3.2

-1.77

3.1329

7.8

2.32

5.3824

94

5.1

0.13

0.0169

5.7

0.22

0.0484

95

2.9

-2.07

4.2849

3.6

-1.88

3.5344

96

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

4.1

-1.38

1.9044

97

6.8

1.83

3.3489

6.1

0.62

0.3844

98

2.7

-2.27

5.1529

7.9

2.42

5.8564

99

5.3

0.33

0.1089

3.2

-2.28

5.1984

100

3.5

-1.47

2.1609

4.5

-0.98

0.9604

101

2.7

-2.27

5.1529

4.5

-0.98

0.9604

102

4.9

-0.07

0.0049

7.3

1.82

3.3124

103

6.7

1.73

2.9929

6.2

0.72

0.5184

104

7.7

2.73

7.4529

5.7

0.22

0.0484

105

6.0

1.03

1.0609

3.9

-1.58

2.4964

106

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

5.3

-0.18

0.0324

107

2.8

-2.17

4.7089

4.1

-1.38

1.9044

108

3.7

-1.27

1.6129

7.6

2.12

4.4944

109

5.4

0.43

0.1849

6.7

1.22

1.4884

110

4.5

-0.47

0.2209

4.2

-1.28

1.6384

111

6.1

1.13

1.2769

5.3

-0.18

0.0324

112

7.9

2.93

8.5849

3.5

-1.98

3.9204

113

3.2

-1.77

3.1329

4.0

-1.48

2.1904

114

4.5

-0.47

0.2209

4.9

-0.58

0.3364

115

4.5

-0.47

0.2209

7.2

1.72

2.9584

116

7.3

2.33

5.4289

4.7

-0.78

0.6084

117

6.2

1.23

1.5129

6.0

0.52

0.2704

118

5.7

0.73

0.5329

4.4

-1.08

1.1664

119

3.9

-1.07

1.1449

3.8

-1.68

2.8224

120

5.3

0.33

0.1089

2.9

-2.58

6.6564

121

4.4

-0.57

0.3249

7.4

1.92

3.6864

122

4.5

-0.47

0.2209

6.5

1.02

1.0404

123

2.9

-2.07

4.2849

4.6

-0.88

0.7744

124

3.8

-1.17

1.3689

Sum

616

-0.28

262.4516

674.4

0.36

261.4752

Average

4.97

5.48

Result: t = 2.7 degrees of freedom – 246

p≤0.05(1.96); p≤0.01 (2.58)

2.7 > 1.96; 2.7 > 2.58

Appendix
C. Results of Pearson’s chi-squared test

Observed
(empirical) frequency

Expected
(theoretical) frequency

(ƒo - ƒe)

(ƒo - ƒe)2

(ƒo - ƒe)2/ƒe

1

2

3

4

5

6

1А

99

90

9

81

0.9

2B

81

90

-9

81

0.9

3C

21

26

-5

25

0.96

4D

31

26

5

25

0.96

5E

0

4

-4

16

4

8

4

4

16

4

Sum

120

120

-

-

11.72