Teachers’ Verbal Lexical Explanation for Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

This article reports a meta‐analysis of studies on the effects of teachers’ verbal lexical explanation (TVLE), as one type of lexical focus on form, on second language vocabulary learning. The dataset for this meta‐analysis included 14 studies, representing a total of 36 independent samples (N = 3,304). The results of this study reveal that TVLE resulted in more vocabulary gains than an absence of TVLE, at posttest and delayed posttest. In addition, explanation in the first language was more effective than explanation in the second language at posttest and delayed posttest. We further identified a range of potential moderators that may influence the effects of TVLE. In particular, we found that the overall effectiveness of TVLE was greater when the degree of vocabulary knowledge was measured through recall tests rather than through recognition tests in the long term.

Effects of Word Definitions on Meaning Recall: A Multisite Intervention in Language‐Diverse Second Language English Classrooms

“…These results align with previous studies where a L1 translation equivalent condition was found to yield higher scores than a L2 meaning definition condition (Hirosh & Degani, 2021;Laufer & Shmueli, 1997;Lee & Macaro, 2013;Zhao & Macaro, 2016). The results are also in line with the metaanalysis reported in Lee and Lee (2022) on teachers' verbal lexical explanations, where L1 explanations yielded more vocabulary knowledge than L2 explanations (d = 0.59), and with Yanagisawa et al's (2020) meta-analysis of studies on the effect of glossing on vocabulary learning from reading in a L2, where L1 glossing trumped L2 glossing. In another meta-analysis, Kim et al (2020) reported similar results on glossing.…”

“…Low scores on a delayed posttest were reported by Zhao and Macaro (2016), who had allocated just one week between their immediate and delayed posttests. The studies in Lee and Lee's (2022) meta-analysis ranged between one week up to four and a half weeks. These are considerably shorter intervals than in our study, where we administered the delayed posttest 8-10 weeks after the immediate posttest, an interval that is considerably longer than what Lee and Lee (2022) reported.…”

“…The studies in Lee and Lee's (2022) meta-analysis ranged between one week up to four and a half weeks. These are considerably shorter intervals than in our study, where we administered the delayed posttest 8-10 weeks after the immediate posttest, an interval that is considerably longer than what Lee and Lee (2022) reported. For most of our learners, this time span was evidently too long to retain a moderate level of knowledge of the infrequent target vocabulary.…”

“…In a meta-analysis, Lee and Lee (2022) pooled 14 studies investigating teachers' verbal lexical explanation for vocabulary learning in a L2. The meta-analysis included data from 3,304 learners.…”

A Meta-Analysis of Test-Retest Reliability in Language Anxiety Research: Is Language Anxiety Stable or Variable?

“…The results of the test for Hypothesis 1 yielded a high test-retest coefficient of .82 with both statistical and practical significance. When compared with the effect sizes reported in Oswald and Plonsky (2010) and recent metaanalytic research in language learning (e.g., Lee & Lee, 2022;Ramezanali et al, 2021), this effect size was perhaps among the largest in language research. Language scholars reporting reliability of anxiety measures have often interpreted high test-retest correlations as indicating a tendency characteristic of trait rather than state anxiety (Aida, 1994).…”