Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp.695-705
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 15 May 2022 Revised 10 Jul 2022 Accepted 31 Jul 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202207.695

Effects of Multiple-Choice Glosses & Frequency on L2 Academic Vocabulary Learning in Korea

Dongho Kang
Professor, Dept. of English Language & Literature, Seoul National Univ. of Science & Technology, Tel: (02) 970-6250 dh14kang@seoultech.ac.kr


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The study investigated the effects of multiple-choice glosses (MCGs) (L1 and L2) and frequency on academic vocabulary learning. Twelve college students in Korea participated in the within-samples study. The paired-samples t-statistics showed the significant learning gains between pre-test and post-test after the provision of MCGs during reading. However, the lower level students significantly improved from pre-test to post-test with L1 MCGs, not with L2 MCGs, while the advanced level more benefited from L2 MCG (p < .01) than L1 MCGs (p < .05). The results of the frequency showed that the development of the new words required at least 6 times regardless of types of gloss languages. The theoretic and pedagogical discussions were made at the conclusion.

Keywords:

academic vocabulary, multiple-choice glossing (L1 vs. L2), frequency, EFL college contexts

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Research Program funded by the SeoulTech (Seoul National University of Science and Technology).

References

  • Choi, S. 2016. Effects of L1 and L2 glosses on incidental vocabulary acquisition and lexical representations. Learning and Individual Differences 45, 137-143. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.018]
  • Eckerth, J. and P. Tavakoli. 2012. The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research 16(2), 227-252. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811431377]
  • Gablasova, D. 2014. Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading: Comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2. The Modern Language Journal 98(4), 976-991. [https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12150]
  • Grundy, P. 2008. Doing Pragmatics (3rd ed.). Hodder Education.
  • Hulstijn, J. H., M. Hollander and T. Greidanus. 1996. Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal 80(3), 327-339. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x]
  • Joe, A. 2010. The quality and frequency of encounters with vocabulary in an English for academic purposes programme. Reading in a Foreign Language 22(1), 117-138.
  • Jozwik, S. L. and K. H. Douglas. 2017. Effects of multicomponent academic vocabulary instruction for English learners with learning difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly 40(4), 237-250. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717704967]
  • Ko, Myong-Hee. 2012. Glossing and second language vocabulary learning. TESOL Quarterly 46(1), 56-79. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3]
  • Ko, Myong-Hee. 2017. The relationship between gloss type and L2 proficiency in incidental vocabulary learning. Modern English Education 18(3), 47-69. [https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2017.18.3.03]
  • Nagy, W. and D. Townsend. 2012. Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly 47(1), 91-108. [https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011]
  • Peters, E., J. H. Hulstijn, L. Sercu and M. Lutjeharms. 2009. Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning 59(1), 113-151. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00502.x]
  • Roling, K. L. 2017. Enhancing Academic Vocabulary Learning in English Language Learners: Applications of the Cognitive Principles of Elaboration and Retrieval Practice in Intervention. A doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin: Madison.
  • Rott, S. 2005. Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form-meaning connections are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language 17(2), 95-124.
  • Rott, S., J. Williams and R. Cameron. 2002. The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input–output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research 6(3), 183-222. [https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr108oa]
  • Watanabe, Y. 1997. Input, intake and retention. Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(3), 287-307. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319700301X]
  • Yanagisawa, A., S. Webb and T. Uchihara. 2020. How do different forms of glossing contribute to L2 vocabulary learning from reading?: A Meta-regression analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42(2), 411-438. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000688]
  • Zhao, T. and J. Ren. 2017. Incidental L2 lexical acquisition in reading: The role of L2-gloss frequency and learner proficiency. The Language Learning Journal 47, 608-624. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1349168]