Effect of Computerized Gloss Presentation Format on Reading Comprehension: A Cognitive Load Perspective

Abstract

In recent years, gloss presentation format or the location where a gloss appears with respect to its related target word has received renewed attention. Research suggested that different gloss presentation formats could have differential effects on reading comprehension and/or vocabulary learning. This study hypothesized that the effectiveness of different computerized gloss presentation formats in reading comprehension could be explained by drawing on the split-attention effect within the framework of cognitive load theory. The effect predicts that when two related sources of information are physically separated (e.g., a target word and the respective gloss), cognitive resources are unnecessarily wasted, and learning is hindered. To test this hypothesis, 39 Persianspeaking L2 learners of English were divided into two experimental conditions, each being exposed to a text enhanced with either in-text or marginal glosses. Two measures of reading comprehension and three measures of cognitive load were employed. The participants' initial differences in terms of grammatical knowledge and vocabulary size were balanced out, and their lookup behavior was also tracked. The results revealed that the participants with access to in-text glosses, compared with those with marginal glosses, experienced lower levels of cognitive load due to the elimination of split-attention and, accordingly, performed better on the reading comprehension measures. Given the participants' L2 proficiency level, the findings suggested that a text enhanced with in-text glosses tends to be instructionally more efficient.

Unraveling Contradictions: Which Glosses Facilitate Reading Comprehension Among ELLs, and Why?

“…Elekaei et al's (2015) four-group study compared the efficacy of glosses as footnotes, glosses in margins, glossaries, and interlinear glosses among English learners to find that interlinear glossing led to higher rates of reading comprehension than did all other gloss locations. These results, like AbuSeileek (2008) and Marefat et al (2016), seem to suggest that when it comes to gloss location, proximity may play a role in glossing efficacy. The mean values for reading comprehension results in Elekaei et al's (2015) study were, in descending order: interlinear, margins, footnotes, and a separate glossary.…”

Understanding variation in children's reading comprehension: A dynamic approach

“…This might be why participants who benefitted from feedback on sentence‐integrations remained stable in their global text comprehension (see Figure 7), whereas participants who received feedback on vocabulary always decreased (see Figure 5). Aligned with this, information which was intended to support foreign‐language text processing in adults had a better effect when it was presented in an integrated than separated form (AbuSeileek, 2011; Marefat et al, 2016).…”

How to present L2 Chinese words effectively for learning: Exploring learning outcomes and learner perceptions

“…Both studies suggested that when presenting learning materials, the split-attention effect should be considered along with task nature and L2 proficiency. In another study, Marefat et al (2016) compared the effects of in-text and marginal glosses on preintermediate learners’ L2 English reading comprehension. For in-text glosses, first language (L1) glosses popped up near a L2 word after it was clicked (integrated format), whereas for marginal glosses, L1 glosses appeared at the right margin (separated format).…”

“…Learner perceptions can be investigated both quantitatively and qualitatively (Wesely, 2012). Among the eight L2 studies on presentation formats reviewed above, only four recorded learner perceptions by collecting quantitative difficulty ratings for learning with different formats and/or for completing posttreatment tests (Lee & Kalyuga, 2011; Marefat et al, 2016; Yeung, 1999; Yeung et al, 1997). Notably, these difficulty ratings were mainly used to calculate instructional efficiency scores to compare the efficacy of different formats (see Paas et al, 2003) rather than to provide detailed analysis of learner perceptions.…”