Proficiency moderates gloss effects: vocabulary benefits appear at Levels 2 and 3 but not Levels 1 and 4¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Significant differences among gloss conditions on vocabulary recall tests were found only for Level 2 and Level 3 subjects, not for Levels 1 and 4. → Cheng 2009

Evidence¶

Cheng 2009¶

Cheng, Y.-H., & Good, R. L. (2009). L1 glosses: Effects on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary retention. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(2), 119–142. doi:10.64152/10125/66828

q3 · i? · causal · r2

One-way ANOVA by proficiency level: VocTest 1 p = .011 (Level 2) and p = .003 (Level 3) were significant, while Levels 1 and 4 showed no significant differences on any vocabulary test. Reading comprehension was non-significant at all four levels (p = .089 to .921).

"Table 4 shows that significant differences within levels were found only for Level 2 and Level 3 subjects"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only L1-gloss-L2-ex and L1-in-text-gloss conditions significantly outperform the no-gloss control on all three vocabulary recall tests — related
• All three L1 gloss conditions significantly improve immediate vocabulary recall over a no-gloss control in EFL reading — related
• L1 glosses do not significantly improve EFL reading comprehension compared with no glosses — related
• Earlier meta-analyses, as reported second-hand, find that glosses improve L2 vocabulary learning and that text-and-picture glosses outperform single-mode glosses — a broader claim this one bears on
• Vocabulary retention declines between immediate and first delayed recall, then rises slightly between the first and second delayed tests — related
• Reading proficiency level moderates incidental vocabulary gains: higher-proficiency readers gained more, consistent with i+1 — related
• 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 — related
• Ability moderates the hierarchical-organization advantage: low-ability subjects showed no significant benefit, while medium-ability subjects did — related