L2 proficiency level is a significant moderator: multiple glosses benefit intermediate and advanced learners more than elementary learners¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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.
q3 i? Heterogeneity across elementary (ES = 0.75), intermediate (ES = .85), and advanced (ES = .81) proficiency subgroups was statistically significant (Q = 6.53, p < 0.05), suggesting multiple glosses highly benefit advanced and intermediate learners relative to elementary learners. → 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 across three proficiency subgroups (elementary N=7, intermediate N=25, advanced N=2) in the meta-analysis. All three subgroup mean effect sizes were statistically significant by their confidence intervals, and the between-group Q-test was significant. The article attributes the pattern partly to cognitive load theory, noting less proficient learners may be unable to use all benefits of multimedia glosses.
"the Q-value (Q=6.53, p<0.05) showed that heterogeneity between effect sizes across three proficiency groups is statistically significant, shedding light on the hypothesis that multiple hypertext glosses seem to highly benefit advanced and intermediate learners in comparison to their counterparts in elementary group"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Proficiency moderates gloss effects: vocabulary benefits appear at Levels 2 and 3 but not Levels 1 and 4 — related
- Reading proficiency level moderates incidental vocabulary gains: higher-proficiency readers gained more, consistent with i+1 — related
- Higher L2 reading proficiency, motivation, and involvement load are associated with larger incidental vocabulary gains — 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.