Effects of gloss type, gloss position, and working memory capacity on second language comprehension in electronic reading

The Effects of Computer-assisted L1 and L2 Textual and Audio Glosses on Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension across Different Learning Styles

“…This juxtaposition, which is the primary reason for the effectiveness of glosses, might have helped the participants learn the meaning of the target words more easily. Varol and Erçetin (2019) found working memory capacity played a major role in the comprehension of glossed texts. Thus, another speculation is that in L2 glosses, particularly when they are presented in an audio format, learners' memory capacity might determine the efficacy of the glosses.…”

“…They found no significant difference between the high and low spatial ability groups. In a recent study, Varol and Erçetin (2019) investigated the role the type of gloss played in terms of content (lexical vs topical), location (pop-up vs separate window), and working memory capacity in L2 learners' recall and comprehension in e-reading. The participants were assigned to four glossing conditions: separate window topic-level glosses, pop-up window topic-level glosses, separate window lexical glosses, and pop-up window lexical glosses.…”

“…Lenders, 2008). Thus, the researchers have tried to investigate the effectiveness of multimedia glosses taking into account other factors such as different types of multimedia glosses (Sakar & Erçetin, 2005;Yanguas, 2009), individual differences like working memory capacity (Varol & Erçetin, 2019), learning styles (Rassaei, 2017), and proficiency levels (Hu, Vongpumivitch, Chang, & Liou, 2014). Some other researchers have compared the effectiveness of L1 versus L2 multimedia glosses (Barabadi, Aftab, & Panahi, 2018;Hu et al, 2014).…”

“…Some other researchers have compared the effectiveness of L1 versus L2 multimedia glosses (Barabadi, Aftab, & Panahi, 2018;Hu et al, 2014). Recently, some researchers have been interested in finding the best possible place to put the glossed words and compared in-text, marginal, pop-up, or tool-tip glosses (Abuseileek, 2011;Chen, 2016;Lee & Lee, 2014;Varol & Erçetin, 2019). Conditions (explicit, incidental, and intentional) and time (interactive vs simultaneous presentation) of gloss presentation have also taken into consideration (Khezrlou, Ellis, & Sadeghi, 2017;Türk & Erçetin, 2012).…”

Glossing and vocabulary learning

“…Learners may therefore prefer a design where a pop-up window appears on the same screen as the text passage (e.g., Bowles, 2004;Lee et al, 2016). A recent study by Varol and Erçetin (2019) indeed suggests that learners are more likely to access hyperlinked glosses if these appear in a pop-up window on the same screen as the text than if they appear on a separate screen. This preference is likely to be particularly strong if there are many hyperlinks and text comprehension is challenging (as was the case in Varol and Erçetin's experiment).…”