Learning context (ESL vs EFL) does not significantly moderate the gloss effect, though EFL contexts showed a nominally larger effect¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The treatment had a medium impact in ESL contexts (ES = .67) and a large impact in EFL contexts, but the difference between the two conditions was not statistically significant (Q = 0.40, p = 0.52). → Vahideh Sadat Vahedi 2014

Evidence¶

Vahideh Sadat Vahedi 2014¶

Vahideh Sadat Vahedi, Behzad Ghonsooly, and Reza Pishghadam. (2014). Vocabulary Glossing: A Meta-Analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of Different Gloss Types on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition. Teaching English with Technology, 16(1), 3-25. http://www.tewtjournal.org

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Moderator analysis comparing second language (ESL) and foreign language (EFL) learning contexts in the meta-analysis. Both confidence intervals were statistically significant, but the between-context Q-test was not. No effect size for the moderator contrast is printed, so impact is null.

"The analysis of the Q-value (Q= 0.40, p=0.52) also showed that even though learners receiving the treatment in an EFL context performed slightly better than their counterparts in an ESL context, the difference between effect sizes in two conditions was not statistically significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Sample size does not significantly moderate the gloss effect: large studies (ES = 0.88) versus small studies (ES = 0.72) do not differ significantly — related
• Research design does not significantly moderate the gloss effect: randomized (ES = 1.16) versus matched (ES = 0.71) studies do not differ significantly — related