The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of the gloss types on junior high learners’ word recognition. Two gloss types, single-translation glosses (STG) and multiple-choice glosses (MCG), and the factor ‘time-on-task’
were manipulated in the current study to understand their effects on vocabulary recognition and retention. Junior high learners’ perceptions towards multiple-choice glosses, which were believed to be unfamiliar to them, were of concern. The results of the current study have been discussed in detail in Chapter Four. The major findings are summarized as follows.
1. The participants in the MCG treatment, generally speaking, were not able to recognize and retain more target words compared to those in the STG treatment when they were given the identical amount of time-on-task. That is, the performances from the MCG group were not superior to those in the STG group.
2. When the time-on-task was extended, as the treatment in the MCG-E group, the participants had significantly better performances than those in the STG group in terms of both word recognition and retention. Though their lexical learning might limit to meaning recognition, it still supported the notion of the
Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer et al., 2001), revealing that deeper
processing contributed to lexical learning and retention.
3. Few participants in the current study had used multiple-choice glosses in reading before. After the experiment, most of the junior high learners in the current study showed positive attitude towards the application of multiple-choice glosses in reading. That is, they prefer to use multiple-choice glosses in reading exercises.
They also believed that multiple-choice glosses have facilitative effects in terms of lexical learning, specifically, meaning recognition.
4. The reasons for the participants’ liking of multiple-choice glosses were: (a) it made the inferencing more accessible; (b) it served as a reinforcement reinforcing the lexical learning and retention; and (c) it was a challenging and motivating task for junior high learners.
The findings in the current study verified the necessity to allot different amount of time-on-task according to different involvement-induced tasks, as Laufer et al. (2001) suggested. With the manipulation of the time-on-task and the control of other potential experimental problems, the findings suggested that sufficient time-on-task allowed learners to fulfill the inferencing process and facilitate the supposed superior effect of multiple-choice glosses. Though some may argue that the better performances were resulted from the longer exposure time, as mentioned in the literature review, it has been proven that it is the involvement load instead of exposure time that determines lexical learning (Hill et al., 2003). The qualitative findings also provided some insights about the participants’ reasons for favoring MCG. Hence, the preliminary findings in the current study suggest that, with careful
time control, the adoption of multiple-choice glosses on learners at junior high levels might be promising.
5.2 Theoretical Implications
The current study examined the effects of different gloss types by following the Involvement Load Hypothesis. The findings in the current study follow the prediction of the hypothesis, suggesting that lexical learning effect can be intensified through activities requiring higher involvement loads. Moreover, the current study also tried to attest ‘whether time-on-task should be regarded as an inherent characteristic,’ as Laufer et al. (2001) suggested. As the results showed, the participants who received sufficient time to fulfill the highly-involved task yielded the most fertile performances (the MCG-E group). In the light of most empirical studies favoring treatments with identical time-on-task, the preliminary finding in the current study raise the issue that different tasks may require different processing time to have their maximized effects. Researchers in the future might consider setting different experiment processing time according to the characteristics of their tasks.
Another concern in the current study is the perspectives from the learners.
Aside from the quantitative data, the participants’ perceptions provided a more thorough understanding of both their belief and their behaviors in the treatments.
The qualitative data also provided concrete evidences to interpret the results from the experiments. Thus, adopting learners’ perspectives in research on glossing might compensate the insufficient part of the quantitative data. Most important of all, since learners are the users of the glosses, their perspectives should never be neglected
from the research. Considering their perceptions in the study might provide a more comprehensive picture for the research on glossing.
5.3 Pedagogical Implications
In Taiwan, single-translation glosses have been widely adopted in reading materials, including textbooks and magazines. Research has indicated that the advantages of adopting single-translation glosses in reading include quickly providing meanings of unknown words, reducing the interruption of checking dictionaries, facilitating reading comprehension, increasing the exposure of authentic materials, and so on. In spite of the abundant advantages of single-translation glosses, it provides only limited effects on lexical learning from reading, which has long been recognized as an essential aspect in terms of acquiring a second or foreign language. This is because the learners tend to shift their focus from unknown words to general reading comprehension quickly as long as the comprehension of unknown words is achieved. As many researchers have suggested (Husltijn, 1992; Nagata, 1999; Lin, 2010; Huang, 2007), multiple-choice glosses have the potential effects on both lexical learning and comprehension for adults and senior high learners. The findings of the current preliminary research suggest that multiple-choice glosses can provide similar lexical learning effect (word recognition) for junior high learners if sufficient time is given. Based on the findings of the current research, some pedagogical implications are provided as follows.
First, incorporating multiple-choice glosses into reading materials seems to be promising for junior high learners in Taiwan. Multiple-choice glosses enhance the learners’ inferencing behaviors (looking for cues) and induce more mental effort.
The significant results from the MCG-E group indicated that the supposed superior effect from the multiple-choice glosses also occurred on junior high learners. They were able to benefit from the deeper processing behaviors generated from multiple-choice glosses. They reported that the ‘search’ and ‘evaluate’ behaviors which entailed while solving multiple-choice glosses reinforced their retention of the recognized words. Moreover, multiple-choice glosses lower the boundary of inferencing for beginning learners like junior high students. In terms of the affective domain, the clues provided by the multiple-choice glosses offered the sense of security to the learners. The challenging and motivating task satisfied the junior high learners’ need for self-realization. Therefore, considering both of the cognitive and affective factors, the current study suggests that it might be feasible to incorporate multiple-choice glosses in readings for junior high learners.
Second, the application of multiple-choice glosses in reading might be a facilitative tool for instructors who would like to enhance their learners’ inferencing skills. As mentioned, multiple-choice glosses provide more hints and decrease the possibility of wild guessing. Learners may not fail to recognize the vocabulary because of the salience of the multiple-choice glosses. This supportive intervention will not be too difficult for junior high learners to have their first step on inferencing.
Practicing looking for cues (searching) and evaluating might help learners to become more familiar with the inferencing process and grasp the tips of it. Though inferencing skills are widely recognized and encouraged, junior high learners in Taiwan have little chance to practice them in their reading programs. If English reading material writers or magazine editors can incorporate multiple-choice glosses into reading materials, the opportunities for the learners to practice inferencing skills
could be increased, in which better lexical learning can be generated.
Third, reading instructors should recognize that it takes more time to process materials which require more mental effort, for example, multiple-choice glossed texts. As for the effort of extra time invested, they are worthy because more vocabulary recognition and retention can be generated. In fact, though the drastic decline of vocabulary retention is inevitable, some aspects of vocabulary knowledge are indeed kept in the memory for a period of time, as the results from the delayed posttest showed. Besides, compared to the STG group, the decline of vocabulary retention from the MCG-E group seems to be slower. Inferencing unknown words in reading is a complex process involving elaborate strategies, hypothesis testing and decision-making. Thus, instructors of multiple-choice glossed reading might need more patience or even provide helps when their learners are trying to infer unknown words in reading. Assuming junior high learners, who do not have lots of inferencing experiences, have the ability to quickly finish multiple-choice glossed texts as they do in single-translation glossed texts might be an illusion. Fortunately, the participants themselves in the current study have awareness of it and believe that the time invested in multiple-choice glosses is worthy for a greater amount of word recognition and retention effects.
Fourth, instructors who would like to use multiple-choice glossed readings might consider assigning them as homework instead of using them in tests. This is because there are still guessing effects there. On the other hand, as the findings found from the focused-group interviews, the participants have generated some degrees of autonomy and would like to take more challenging tasks for practices.
Therefore, multiple-choice glossed reading should be carefully used according to
instructors’ teaching goals and context.
Last but not the least, one thing that instructors and material editors should bear in mind is that vocabulary learning is an incremental process. The findings in the current study follow the notion that junior high learners have the ability to pick up lexical words in reading. Though the current study tackled only one aspect of vocabulary knowledge, meaning recognition, other aspects of vocabulary knowledge have been proven to be gained incrementally and unintentionally with more exposure frequency in reading ( e.g. Lin, 2010). The current study suggested that the adoption of multiple-choice glosses in reading impelled the inferencing behaviors, which contributed to the lexical learning.
It is also noteworthy that the current study did not try to degrade the values of other vocabulary interventions, for example, intentional learning. As Sonbul and Schmitt (2009) suggested, a combination of different interventions may bring positive and reinforcing effects on different aspects of vocabulary knowledge than one intervention only. Instructors can try to combine different vocabulary interventions to generate greater effects. Overall, the current study tries to suggest that teachers should not underestimate EF learners’ ability to learn lexical words from reading. Even beginning learners, as the participants in the current study, have the ability to do lexical inferencing by manipulating multiple-choice glosses. Thus, instead of directly providing meanings of unknown words, teachers could encourage their learners to try to infer vocabulary as much as they can while reading. As reading has been proven to be beneficial to overall English proficiency, it is hoped that through the practices of lexical inferencing in reading, learners’ vocabulary knowledge or even the amount of lexical words can be gradually accumulated.
5.4 Limitations of the Study
Though the current study was devoted to avoiding some experimental drawbacks from the previous research, there were still some limitations that the current study was unable to resolve. To begin with, only three classes of the junior high learners (96 people in total) from a public school in northern Taiwan were invited to participate in the research. The number might be valid in statistics but may not be large enough in terms of the survey part. Thus, the results of the survey might not be able to represent the general situation of the overall junior high learners in Taiwan. That is, the generalization of the findings in the current study should be interpreted with caution. For example, learners with different English learning backgrounds or from different areas might have different perceptions towards multiple-choice glosses. Second, the current study discussed about only meaning recognition in terms of vocabulary knowledge. This is because junior high learners are not expected to intentionally memorize the vocabulary while reading. In fact, more aspects of vocabulary knowledge could be investigated to understand the effects of multiple-choice glosses, including both receptive and productive knowledge. Third, different learners might have different reading or learning paces.
To simplify the experimental method in the current study, the time-on-task allotted to the MCG-E group was determined by the time the students used in the pilot study.
In other words, all the participants in the MCG-E received the same amount of processing time. Whether the individual learning paces affect the effects of multiple-choice glosses might need more investigation. Finally, the results of the current study were generated from a short-term intervention. Participants’
perceptions towards multiple-choice glosses might change in time. More in-depth
thoughts might be generated along with time and experiences. In sum, limited to the context of the current study, the interpretation or generalization of the results in the current study should be prudent.
5.5 Suggestions for Future Research
In line with L2 research investigating lexical learning effects from reading, the current study probed into the effects that different gloss types might bring to junior high learners. The current study also managed to improve the ‘time’ problem in most previous relevant studies (e.g., Watanabe, 1997; Nagata, 1999; Wang, 2005;
Huang, 2007). However, some limitations were unavoidable. Based on the abovementioned limitations, some suggestions for future research are as follows.
First, more junior high learners can be recruited in the studies aiming to investigate multiple-choice glosses. According to the preliminary findings in the current study, the application of multiple-choice glosses in reading seemed to be new to most of the junior high participants. Even though they showed positive attitudes towards the adoption of multiple-choice in reading and believed their facilitating effect on lexical learning. A large scale of investigation on junior high learners’ opinions towards multiple-choice glosses might produce a thorough understanding of the potential effects for junior high learners.
Second, future studies need to investigate whether the positive effect of multiple-choice glosses from repetitive exposure are also retained on junior high learners. It has been generally recognized that higher exposure frequency of multiple-choice glosses generates better form-meaning connections of lexical words on adults and senior high learners (e.g. Rott, 2005; Lin, 2010). As well-recognized in research, learners’ proficiency level is an influential factor in learning. Whether
beginning learners like junior high learners can benefit from a repetitive exposure frequency of multiple-choice glosses might be an intriguing issue which might shed some light on L2 learning.
Third, individual differences might be a factor that future research needs to adopt. Different learners might have different preferences of the gloss types. The reasons that support the learners’ decisions might reflect what they believe in terms of learning. In the current study, there were participants who would like to take challenges. There were also some participants who were not so interested in self-challenging processes. Limited to the scale and the experiment time, not all of the participants were able to be invited to the interviews. Whether their individual differences affect their performances on multiple-choice glossed task might be an intriguing phenomenon to explore.
Finally, as mentioned in the subsection on limitations, students might have different reading or learning paces. Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) software might be used to capture or record the time that the participants spend to finish reading materials. In this way, the learners’ interaction with gloss types and the precise time-on-task might be further traced and investigated.
APPENDIX A Vocabulary Pre-test 請寫出以下單字的中文
英文 中文 英文 中文
1. dispute 2. resolved
3. negative 4. persist
5. determination 6. obey
7. quarrel 8. insist
9. gadget 10. precious
11. terrify 12. gesture
13. assume 14. detect
15. inspire 16. ruin
APPENDIX B
The reading passage with single-translation gloss (STG) 請在時間限制內，閱讀以下文章，並回答閱讀問題：
The talk with Mom
The conversation was turning out badly. I wanted to study in Japan. We had a dispute. It was a stormy night outside. My mother took off her glasses and looked at me from her armchair. She was resolved when she said no. She was very negative about the idea of me studying in Japan. I persisted trying to tell her that I have been studying Japanese for a long time and am very interested in life there. She made it clear that it was her determination that I could not go. She said that I should be patient, that I am too young to go abroad, and that I should obey her and mind my manners.
I raised the volume of my voice and the quarrel was now louder than the storm outside. I said that I would insist on my idea and ran upstairs. The conversation did not go on until my father had come home and both my mom and I had taken time to rest.
My father said that we would all go to Japan on a vacation this summer. No matter what we decide to do, I know that I need to learn to watch the manner in which I talk to Mom. How you say things is just as important as what you say.
1. ( ) Why did the writer talk to her mom badly?
(A) The writer’s father treated him badly.
(B) The writer’s mom interested in the life in Japan, but the writer didn’t.
(C) The writer thought he was old enough to talk like that.
(D) The writer wanted to study in Japan, and his mom didn’t agree with him
2. ( ) What happened in the end?
(A) The writer could study in Japan.
(B) The writer’s mom agreed with his idea.
dispute (n.) 爭吵
(C) The writer thought he shouldn’t talk to his mom like that.
(D) The writer’s father thought they could move to Japan.
3. ( ) Which is true?
(A) The writer gave up his plan to study in Japan.
(B) The writer was too angry to run upstairs.
(C) The writer’s family would have a trip to Japan in the summer.
(D) The way we say things is not important.
Readability Indices
Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease 88.3 Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 4.1 Gunning Fog Score 6.6
SMOG Index 4.5 Coleman Liau Index 6.6
Automated Readability Index 2.9 Text Statistics
No. of sentences 17 No. of words 219 No. of complex words 9
Percent of complex words 4.11%
Average words per sentence 12.88 Average syllables per word 1.25
APPENDIX C
The reading passage with multiple-choice gloss (MCG and MCG-E)
---PART A---
The conversation was turning out badly. I wanted to study in Japan. We had a dispute. It was a stormy night outside. My mother took off her glasses and looked at
The conversation was turning out badly. I wanted to study in Japan. We had a dispute. It was a stormy night outside. My mother took off her glasses and looked at