In Lomicka's think-aloud study, no statistical differences emerged among no-gloss, single-gloss, and multiple-gloss groups despite apparent vocabulary gains from multiple annotations¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Statistical differences between the three gloss-access groups were not found through think-aloud protocol data, although students with multiple annotations appeared to learn more vocabulary. → Yun 2008
Evidence¶
Yun 2008¶
Yun, J. H. (2008). The Effects of Hypertext Glosses on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
The dissertation reports, citing Lomicka (1998), a study of 12 native English speakers in undergraduate French classes randomly assigned to no-gloss, single-gloss, or multiple-gloss conditions, in which "statistical differences between three groups were not found". The apparent advantage is descriptive only.
"statistical differences between three groups were not found through think-aloud protocol data even though the students appeared to learn more vocabulary when they chose from a variety of assistive multiple annotations"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Multimedia glosses improve EFL students' immediate vocabulary acquisition relative to reading the same texts without glosses — related
- Combining textual and pictorial glosses improves incidental vocabulary learning more than single-mode glosses — related
- L1 glosses do not significantly improve EFL reading comprehension compared with no glosses — related
- In Yoshii's study, text + picture glosses beat text-only glosses only on a definition-supply test, with no L1 versus L2 gloss difference — related
- In Chun and Plass's CyberBuch studies, the text + picture annotation group significantly outperformed text-definition and text + video groups on a vocabulary test — related
- Proficiency moderates gloss effects: vocabulary benefits appear at Levels 2 and 3 but not Levels 1 and 4 — related
- Multimedia glosses improve EFL students' vocabulary retention two weeks after treatment relative to no glosses — related
- Only L1-gloss-L2-ex and L1-in-text-gloss conditions significantly outperform the no-gloss control on all three vocabulary recall tests — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
lomicka-no-statistical-difference-gloss-groups |
title |
In Lomicka's think-aloud study, no statistical differences emerged among no-gloss, single-gloss, and multiple-gloss groups despite apparent vocabulary gains from multiple annotations |
description |
In Lomicka's think-aloud study, no statistical differences emerged among no-gloss, single-gloss, and multiple-gloss groups despite apparent vocabulary gains from multiple annotations |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2008 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yun-2008 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.