Studies of the effects of L1 glossing on L2 reading comprehension have shown varying results. The present meta-analytic study provides an update of the research of CALL glossing studies and examines key variables related to how CALL glossing can be effective. Findings revealed an overall effect size of .84, which suggests that most readers with CALL glosses should comprehend L2 text more effectively than students without CALL glosses. The present study also found that both productive and receptive tests can be effective in measuring L2 reading comprehension, large amounts of CALL glossing do not necessarily effectively facilitate L2 reading comprehension, and textual glossing with pictures may be the most effective means of CALL glossing.
*AbrahamL. B. (2007).
Second-language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Hispania,
90, 98–108.
2.
AbrahamL. B. (2008).
Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis.Computer Assisted Language Learning,
21, 199–226.
3.
Abu-RabiaS. (1996).
Attitudes and cultural background and their relationship to reading comprehension in a second language: A comparison of three different social contexts.International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
6, 81–107.
4.
AbuSeileekA. F. (2008).
Hypermedia annotation presentation: Learners’ preferences and effect on EFL reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition.CALICO Journal,
25, 260–275.
5.
*AbuSeileekA. F. (2011).
Hypermedia annotation presentation: The effect of location and type on the EFL learners’ achievement in reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition.Computers & Education,
57, 1281–1291.
6.
AweissS. (1993). The effects of computer-mediated reading supports on the reading comprehension and the reading behavior of beginning American learners of Arabic as a foreign language [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Ohio State University.
7.
*AweissS. (1994).
Situating learning in technology: The case of computer-mediated reading supports.Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
23, 63–74.
8.
BaumannC. C. (1994). The effect of previews and glosses on the reading comprehension ofbeginning and intermediate students of German [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota.
9.
BernhardtE. B. (1983).
Testing foreign language reading comprehension: The immediate recall protocol.Die Unterrichtspraxis,
16, 27–33.
10.
BernhardtE. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives.
Ablex.
11.
BernsM. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching.
Plenum Press.
*BowlesM. A. (2004).
L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania,
87, 541–552.
14.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Rand McNally.
15.
CarrellP. L.PharisB. G.LibertoJ. C. (1989).
Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading.TESOL Quarterly,
23, 647–678.
16.
ChenI. J. (2016).
Hypertext glosses for foreign language reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition: Effects of assessment methods.Computer Assisted Language Learning,
29, 413–426.
17.
*ChenI. J.YenJ. C. (2013).
Hypertext annotation: Effects of presentation formats and learner proficiency on reading comprehension and vocabulary learning in foreign languages.Computers & Education,
63, 416–423.
18.
ChunD. M. (2011). Call technologies for L2 reading post web 2.0. In ArnoldN.DucateL. (Eds.), Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 131–169).
TX CALICO.
19.
CronbachL. J. (1982). Prudent aspirations for social inquiry. In KruskalW. H. (Ed.), The social sciences: Their nature and uses (Chap. 5, pp. 61–81).
The University of Chicago Press.
20.
*Coriano VelázquezA. (2001). Vocabulary acquisition through reading: A study of the effectiveness of different CALL based annotations [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Puerto Rico.
21.
DavisJ. N. (1989).
Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal,
73, 41–48.
22.
*GoyetteE. S. (1995). The effects of dictionary usage on text comprehension [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of McGill.
23.
*GuidiC. (2009) Glossing for meaning and glossing for form. A computerized study of the effects of glossing and type of linguistic item on reading comprehension, noticing and L2 learning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgetown University.
24.
*HaydenS. (1997). An investigation into the effect and patterns of usage of a computer-mediated text in reading comprehension in French [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.
25.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1980).
Vote counting methods in research synthesis. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 359–369.
26.
JacobsG. M.DufonP.HongF. G. (1994).
L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading,
17, 19–28.
27.
JoyceE. E. (1997). Which words should be glossed in L2 reading materials? A study of first, second and third semester French students’ recall Pennsylvania Language Forum (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 508. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED427508.pdf).
28.
KernR. G. (1989).
Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability.The Modern Language Journal,
73, 135–149.
29.
*KnightS. (1994).
Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal,
78, 285–299.
30.
Ko, M. H. (1995). Glossing in incidental and intentional learning of foreign language vocabulary and reading comprehension. Unpublished Thesis (M.A.), U of Hawai'i, Manoa.
31.
KyriacouC.KoboriM. (1998).
Motivation to learn and teach English in Slovenia. Educational Studies,
24, 345–351.
32.
*LomickaL. L. (1998).
To gloss or not to gloss: An investigation of reading comprehension online. Language Learning and Technology,
1, 41–50.
33.
*PlassJ. L.ChunD. M.MayerR. E.LeutnerD. (2003).
Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior,
19, 221–243.
34.
PlonskyL., Zeigler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis.
35.
SadighiF.MaghsudiN. (2000).
The relationship between motivation and English proficiency among Iranian EFL learners.Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata,
29, 151–163.
36.
*SalemE. B. (2006). The influence of electronic glosses on word retention and reading comprehension with Spanish Language Learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Kansas.
37.
ShohamyE. (1984).
Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing,
1, 147–170.
38.
StevensJ. R.TaylorA. M. (2009).
Hierarchical dependence in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,
34, 46–73.
39.
*StoehrL. E. (1999). The effects of built-in comprehension aids in a CALL program on student-readers’ understanding of a foreign language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas at Austin.
40.
TaylorA. M. (2002). A meta-analysis on the effects of L1 glosses on L2 reading comprehension [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University.
41.
TaylorA. M. (2006).
The effects of CALL versus traditional L1 glosses on L2 reading comprehension.CALICO Journal,
23, 309–318.
42.
TaylorA. M. (2009).
CALL-based versus paper-based glosses: Is there a difference in reading comprehension?CALICO Journal,
27, 147–160.
TaylorA. M. (2013).
CALL versus paper: In which context are L1 glosses more effective?CALICO Journal,
30, 63–81.
45.
TaylorA. M. (2014a).
Glossing frequency and L2 reading comprehension: The influence of CALL glossing.CALICO Journal,
31, 374–389.
46.
TaylorA. M. (2014b).
L1 glossing and strategy training for improving L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis.International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education,
2, 39–68.
47.
TaylorA. M. (2014c).
The value of SCMC in SLA: Comments on Lin, Huang & Liou (2013).Language Learning and Technology,
18, 1–3.
48.
TaylorA. M. (2019). CALL and L2 reading: Current research and application: In ArnoldN.DucateL. (Eds.), Engaging language learners through call: From theory and research to informed practice (pp. 179–207).
TX CALICO.
49.
TaylorA. M.StevensJ. R.AsherJ. W. (2006). The effects of Explicit Reading Strategy Training on L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 231–344).
John Benjamins.
50.
WolfD. F. (1993).
A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal,
77, 473–489.
51.
*YanguasI. (2009).
Multimedia glosses and their effects on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning.Language Learning and Technology,
13, 49–67.
52.
*YoungsB. L. E. (1994). CALL and second language acquisition: The use of the ‘Reader’ computer program to improve student proficiency in French [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.
53.
YunJ. (2011).
The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis.Computer-Assisted Language Learning,
24, 39–58.
