The effects of L1 and L2 e-glosses on

incidental vocabulary learning of junior

high-school English students
Presented by
Nannan Mei
 Reading
comprehens
ion Hulstijn
Paper-based
& (1992)
vocabulary
learning

The effects of L1 and L2 e-glosses on incidental

vocabulary

learning of junior high-school English students

Less researched group
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

What is incidental vocabulary learning?-Hulstijn

(1992) .

Why is incidental vocabulary learning?

Why is gloss for incidental vocabulary learning?

What is the purpose of the study?

1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Three meta-analysis projects-the effectiveness of CALL vs paper-

based glosses.
Taylor (2006): 19 studies, traditional L1 glosses vs CALL L1 glosses, L2
reading.
Abraham (2008): 11 studies, CALL glosses (L1 or L1 plus L2) vs without
access to CALL-gloss.
Taylor (2009): 32 studies, CALL glossing vs non-CALL glossing, reading.
Single studies-the efficiency of CALL based glossing environments for
reading.
Davis and Lyman-Hager (1997)
Lyman-Hager, Davis, Burnett and Chennault (1993)
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

E-gloss design question-CALL gloss: L1 vs L2;

Jacobs, Dufon, and Hong (1994)
(1) reading with no gloss
(2) reading with English (L1) glosses
(3) reading with Spanish (L2) glosses
Chen (2002)-85 college EFL freshmen in
Taiwan; 193-word English text; 20
target words being glossed.
(1) L1 (Chinese) gloss
(2) L2 (English) gloss
(3) no gloss

No significant difference between L1 and L2 glosses.

1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Other studies-glossing language is related with the students

English ability.
Ko (2005): 106 Korean undergraduate students; 931-word article;
24 target words.
(1) L1 glosses; (2) L2 glosses; (3) no gloss
Miyasako (2002): 187 Japanese senior high school students.

Watanabe (1997): 24 adult ESL students; different nationalities;

USA; a 463-word
text; 15 target words.
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Yoshii (2006): 195 Japanese university students; multimedia environment.

(1)L1 text only; (2) L1 text plus picture;
(3) L2 text only; (4) L2 text plus picture;

Stewarts
(1994)-
Revised
Hierarchica
l Model
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Research Question
1. Do the effects of L1 and L2 glosses differ in incidental
vocabulary learning?
2. Does the factor of learners proficiency levels (low and
high) influence the effects of L1 and L2 glosses on
incidental vocabulary learning?
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

3.1 Reading materials

1. Pre-reading materials (from Hill, 1994)
2. Pilot study: 2 experienced local English teachers (including the first author); 3 short articles; 6 students with same
background and different proficiency levels; articles in paper version; L1 (Chinese) gloss;
3. Articles A and C were chosen as the articles for the treatment.
4. 33 content words were treated as the glossed target words in Articles A and C.

Selection criteria for the target

Results of pilot study
articles
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

3.2 Participants
78; 9th graders; public junior high Group students-reflect two
school; Taiwan independent variables
Two independent Gloss language (L1 &
variables L2)

Group 1 Low L2-L1Proficiency level (low

Experiment 1&
(n=20) high)
Group 2 Low L1-L2 Experiment 2
(n=20)
Group 3 High L2-L1 Experiment 1
The dependent
(n=19) Students scores
variable measured by the
Group 4 High L1-L2 Experiment 2
immediate and delayed
(n=19)
vocabulary post-tests.
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

3.3 Instruments
Pre-test Post-test
Two goals Two kinds of post-tests
1. enhance the validity of the study. 1. the immediate post-test
2. ensure the equivalence of the groups previous knowledge of 2. the delayed post-test
the target words.
Two groups of test items (12 items each group)
Two parts
1. the definition-supply items
1. 35 key words and phrases important for understanding the L2
glosses. 2. the cloze items
2. 33 words taken from Article A and C, marked as unknown in the Sample
pilot study.
Sample

Result: among 33 target words from 2 articles, 24 words (12

in each) were unknown to all participants. The delayed post-test: the same as the immediate
These 24 content words were regarded as target words
post-test but the order of the test items was different.
in the two online reading experiments.
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

3.4 Treatment-online reading with the aid of glosses

Online Online
Experiment One week Experiment
1 2
(15 mins) (15 mins)

Ensure the credibility

Sample
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

3.5 Procedure
The study - 4 class periods (40 mins
Standard for evaluation
each)
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Raters: 2 native Chinese junior high school English
explanation 1st 2nd delayed teachers
& pre-test experiment experiment post-test 1 point for each correct answer
& immediate & immediate Definition-supply items: at least one meaning
post-test post-test Cloze post-test: correct whole target word
definition- definition- definition- same items
supply items supply items supply items with
and cloze and cloze immediate Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA)
items items post-tests were conducted on the definition supply and the cloze
post-tests.
Low L2-L1 Low L1-L2 When the results showed significant differences
(n=20) (n=20)
among these tests, post-hoc analyses further
High L2-L1 High L1-L2
(n=19) (n=19) examined the differences across the four groups .
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

4.1 Definition-supply post-tests (immediate 4.2 The cloze post-tests (immediate and
and delayed) delayed)
Mean scores (4 groups) were low in general.
Mean scores were lower in the delayed post-test.
Mean scores of low groups were even lower.
ANOVA and post-hoc were conducted.

Mean scores (4 groups) were lower than the

definition-supply tests.
ANOVA and post-hoc were conducted.
The two high groups performed better than the two
low groups.
The gloss-language was not evident for the cloze
items.
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Both for the definition-supply and ANOVA proficiency effect High groups got higher
scores with L1 or L2
cloze post-tests, the mean scores of gloss (definition-supply
all four groups are low in general in & cloze)

the post-tests. Post- gloss-language High groups performed

The high groups performed better
with L2 gloss; low groups performed
better with L1 gloss.
With the same proficiency level, no
significant difference with L1 or L2
gloss.
hoc effect better with L2 gloss
(definition-supply)
1. The results of this study supported the findings of the
previous study and confirmed Kroll and Stewarts
Revised Hierarchical Model (1994).
2. There is a need to take both the gloss languages and
the learner proficiency level into consideration.
1. Introduction 2.Literature review 3.Methodology 4.Results 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Study Implication
1. E-glosses (L1 or L2) are useful for vocabulary learning and crucial for reading
comprehension.
2. Gloss-language depends on learners proficiency and should be offered in CALL
environment.
Study Limitation
1. The difficulty of the target words in the two experiments were not to the same degree
for repeated treatment purpose.
2. Due to time limitation, the delayed-tests for the two experiments were combined,
which could have a negative influence on the results.
Study Significance
1.E-gloss reading program can provide additional input for EFL junior high school students.
2. Different gloss languages have impacts on learners with different proficiency levels.
Questions
1. Based on the students performance, article A and C were chosen for
the treatment (p.84). Talk about the performance that you think can be
treated as essential criteria.
2. The answers in the pre-and post-tests were counted as correct if the
students gave at least one answer for a word with multiple meanings in
definition-supply part (p.87). What do you think? Is there any chance
that this criterion will increase the scores?
3. It seems that there might be a threshold level for incidental
vocabulary learning when learners at different stages. Talk about how to
define participants proficiency level and the threshold level.