The relative impact of L1 and L2 glosses along with computer-generated phonological guidance on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning

Barabadi, Elyas; Aftab, Asma; Panahi, Amir

doi:10.1080/2331186x.2018.1483048

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that this criterion does not apply to studies based on the repeated-measures design (e.g. Barabadi, Asma & Panahi, 2018; Kongtawee & Sappapan, 2018; Taheri & Zade, 2014). Three studies were excluded on this basis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relative effects of L1 and L2 glosses on L2 learning: A meta-analysis

Kim¹,

Lee

2020

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glossing is a widely used and examined vocabulary learning tool, and one of the major branches of glossing research has compared the relative effects of first language (L1) and second language (L2) glosses on reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. However, the findings in this literature have not been consistent, calling for a comprehensive and systematic review. To this end, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the relative effects of L1 and L2 glossing on L2 reading comprehension and L2 vocabulary learning. Based on 78 effect sizes gathered from 26 studies representing 30 independent samples ( N = 2,189), we found that L1 glossing was more effective than L2 glossing in general (Hedge’s g = .33, SE = .09, p < .001), but the effect size may vary depending on the target outcome measure. The relative effectiveness of L1 glossing was particularly supported by the results of immediate posttests of vocabulary, rather than delayed posttests of vocabulary and reading comprehension tests. Further, among a few selected moderator variables, the results of meta-regression revealed that learners’ L2 proficiency level significantly influenced the average effectiveness, such that L1 glossing is particularly effective for beginner learners compared to those with intermediate or higher L2 proficiency levels.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relative effects of L1 and L2 glosses on L2 learning: A meta-analysis

Kim¹,

Lee

2020

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results suggested that the L1 can be used as an effective tool to gloss the texts. Barabadi et al (2018) investigated the impact of L1 and L2 glosses along with computergenerated phonological guidance on vocabulary learning. Contrary to Rouhi and Mohebbi (2012), the results indicated that L1 and L2 glosses assisted with phonological guidance resulted in better performance regardless of the language used to gloss the target words.…”

Section: The Language Of Glossesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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). 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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tadayonifar

Entezari

Valizadeh

2021

JLE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated the effects of computer-assisted L1 and L2 textual and audio glosses on vocabulary learning and reading comprehension across various learning styles. Based on the PET test, 30 homogeneous Iranian EFL learners took the VARK questionnaire and were divided into five learning style groups. Twenty-eight words were selected to be glossed in four reading passages. The selected passages, which were glossed in the four different forms of L1 and L2 audio and L1 and L2 textual by creating hyperlinks on the target words, were presented to the participants through a computer screen. All groups underwent all the treatment conditions and then took posttests. Three-way ANOVAs were run to investigate the effects of learning styles, modes, and language, and their two-way and three-way interactions on the performance of EFL learners on the vocabulary and reading comprehension posttests. While no significant differences between language and mode of glosses on the reading comprehension posttest scores were observed, it was revealed that L1 glosses were more beneficial than L2 glosses for vocabulary learning. The study also showed that the textual glosses were more effective than audio glosses for vocabulary learning. The results further displayed significant differences between learning styles on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension posttest scores.

show abstract

“…It became evidently legible for the researcher that more research is needed to devise methods and strategies that are apt to enhance students' vocabulary. 3-Recommendations of other researchers in the field (Uherman,1998, Mendez-Garcia and Ramos, 1999, Faid, 2003, Al-Ghamdi, 2005, Flynn, 2008, Karasu, et al, 2016, Ahmad, et al , 2017, Barabadi, et al, 2018, Northrop and Andrei, 2019, Limia, et al, 2019 the majority of which lay great stress on the significance of English vocabulary and suggest that more studies should be conducted to devise methods and techniques in order to enrich it.…”

Section: Context Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Findings also indicated that extended instruction was more effective than embedded instruction. Barabadi, et al (2018) investigated the relative effectiveness of four vocabulary gloss types: L1 gloss, L1 gloss with phonological guidance, L2 gloss, and L2 gloss with phonological guidance. The participants were 63 Iranian undergraduate EFL students.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%