tooltip-type, frame-type, and concordance glossing in l2 reading
DESCRIPTION
Lee, J. (2014, September). Tooltip-type, frame-type, and concordance glossing in L2 reading. Paper presented at the meeting of KAMALL Annual Conference 2014, Seoul, Korea. [Abstract] This study investigated the effects of three different types of electronic textual glossing, namely tooltip-type, frame-type, and concordance glossing, on foreign language (FL) vocabulary acquisition. The present study was primarily driven by Nation’s (2009) introduction to the different types of glossing available for enhancing FL vocabulary learning in computer-assisted learning environments, and his suggestion that these glossing types be compared in terms of their effectiveness. While the first two glossing types both provide the definitions of glossed words but are different from each other in terms of their user interface designs. In the case of tooltip-type glossing, a pop-up box showing the definition of a glossed word temporarily appears when a reader hovers the mouse cursor over the glossed word, and it disappears when he or she moves the cursor away from the word. This glossing format is designed in such a way that it would not obscure any surrounding contexts around the glossed word. On the other hand, in the frame-type glossing, the definition appears in the bottom frame of the screen when a reader clicks the glossed word. In the concordance glossing, the glossing device is equipped with concordance sentences involving the glossed words, through which a reader is given three authentic sentences from two authoritative reference corpora (“British National Corpus” and “Brown”) in the frame-type format. A total of 83 university students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) participated in the study. They completed a computer-based reading task, a reading comprehension test, meaning recall vocabulary tests at three different points in time, and a post-reading questionnaire. Our findings showed that the intermediate EFL learners were affected not by a difference in terms of glossing formats, but by the type of information provided, with tooltip-type and frame-type glossing bringing about more positive outcomes in terms of vocabulary learning. On the other hand, these glossing types were found to make no difference in terms of students’ reading comprehension. The findings further revealed that the tooltip-type and frame-type groups made greater gains of target vocabulary, while the three groups all experienced a similar amount of cognitive load, and that these groups consequently rated their respective glossing more positively than the concordance group.TRANSCRIPT
Tooltip-type, Frame-type, and
Concordance Glossing in L2 Reading
2014 KAMALL
Jang Ho Lee(Chung-Ang Univ.)
1
What is glossing and why?
2
Supplementary lexical information provided in
reading texts
Enhance reading comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition
3
Previous Studies
Glossing research in the past
Hulstijn et al. (1996)
Watanabe (1997)
Glossing research in CALL
AbuSeileek (2011)
Chen and Yen (2013)
Poole (2012)
4
Dictionary function pages on Kindle (left)
and iPad Safari (right) screens
5
Tooltip-type glossing (TG)
7
Frame-type glossing (FG)
8
Concordance glossing (CG)
9
Motivation for Comparing tooltip and
frame
10
Nation (2009)
First, there has been no previous study of FL
contexts that has examined the effects of tooltip-
type glosses in comparison with other types of
glosses (frame-type glosses in this case).
Second, these two formats are arguably the most
widely used forms of electronic textual glosses
today; thus, it is of considerable importance to
investigate their relative effectiveness for our FL
learners.
Research Question 1
11
(1) Do EFL adult learners assigned to different
glossing types in hypermedia reading environments
show different gains in terms of the short-term and
long-term word recall?
Hypothesis 1a: The gains of the group assigned to
the concordance glossing condition will be lower
than those of the groups assigned to the definition-
type of glossing conditions.
Hypothesis 1b: The gains of the group assigned to
the tooltip-type glossing will be higher than those of
the group assigned to the frame-type glossing.
Research Question 2
12
(2) Do EFL adult learners assigned to different glossing types in hypermedia reading environments show differences in their self-perceived amount of cognitive load and in their perception of the usefulness of the respective glossing types they encountered?
Hypothesis 2a: In view of their level of English language proficiency, the group assigned to the concordance glossing condition and the other two groups assigned to definition-type glossing will experience a similar amount of cognitive load.
Hypothesis 2b: The groups assigned to definition-type glossing will rate the usefulness of their glossing type more positively, as definition-type glossing is more familiar to them.
Participants
13
83 Korean first-year university students (25 of whom majored in Arts and Humanities, and 58 of whom majored in the Sciences)
Nine years’ experience learning English in formal school contexts, and reported themselves to be competent users of computers.
The average score of TOEIC: 720
Enrolled in a mandatory course entitled “English Reading”
Group Formation
14
Tooltip-type glossing
Class 1
Class 6
Frame-type glossing
Class 2
Class 4
Concordance glossing
Class 3
Class 5
Material and Experimental Conditions
15
“Education: Fact or Myth?” extracted from
Cutting Edge Advanced with Phrase Builder
(Cunningham et al. 2003) - 893 words long
10 target words
Tooltip-type glossing (TG), frame-type glossing
(FG), and concordance glossing (CG).
Testing and Post-reading Questionnaire
16
A passive recall test of vocabulary
만약 다음의 단어를 알고 있다면 그 단어의 뜻을 한국말이나영어로 적으세요.
Online post-reading questionnaire about the participants’ perception of the difficulty of the reading text and target vocabulary, which was in turn operationalized as the mental effort (i.e., cognitive load)
방금 읽은 지문의 난이도는 어땠습니까?
지문의 어휘 난이도는 어땠습니까?
1 being extremely difficult and 7 being extremely easy
Usefulness of glossing device
Procedure
17
Piloting
Pre-test of vocabulary
Main reading activity / post-test of vocabulary
/ Post-reading questionnaire
Delayed test of vocabulary
Scoring
18
Two points were given for the completely correct meaning of each target word, and one point for the partial meaning
‘plethora’
2 point for “a very large amount or number, an amount that is much greater than what is necessary”
1 point for answers which lacks the nuance of ‘excessiveness’
Data Analysis
19
A mixed ANOVA with two main factors, Time (i.e.,
pre-test, post-test and delayed test) and Condition
(i.e., Tooltip-type, frame-type, and concordance)
(1) paired sample t-tests were conducted to further
examine the effect of Time for each group
(2) a one-way ANOVA was conducted for the overall
comparison of the three groups in terms of their
scores on the post-test, and delayed test of
vocabulary, along with post-hoc Scheffé tests
Preliminary Analyses of the English
Proficiency Test and Pre-test of Vocabulary
20
The result of a one-way ANOVA on the
participants’ TOEIC scores did not reach a
statistical significance (F (2, 80) = .12, p = .89),
Similarly there was also no significant
difference among the groups in their knowledge
of the target words prior to reading, as
demonstrated by the pre-test of vocabulary (F
(2, 80) = .23, p = .79)
Results
21
22
Developmental patterns of vocabulary
knowledge for the three groups
23
ANOVA
24
The post-test
F (2, 80) = 11.27, p = 0.001.
Post-hoc Tooltip, frame > concordance
The delayed post-test
F (2, 80) = 8.64, p = 0.001.
Post-hoc Tooltip, frame > concordance
25
Rating on usefulness of glossing types
26
Tooltip-type group M = 5.07, SD = 1.27
Frame-type group M = 4.88, SD = .97
Concordance group M = 3.56, SD = 1.58
Comments on concordance
27
모르는 단어인데 예문을 봐도 대충의 의미는 파악되지만 정확한뜻은잘모르겠습니다
예문에서 어떻게 쓰이는 지에 대해서만 나와있어서이것이 어떠한 정의를 가지고 있는 어휘인지는 알기가 어려웠다. 정의를 주고 예문을 주었더라면 더 이해하기 쉬웠을 것 같다.
예문을 봐도 딱히뜻이떠오르지않았다.
Comments on tooltip, frame
28
어휘의 정의를 바로볼수있었습니다.
그냥 영영사전처럼 잘나와있어서 보기 편했다.
사전의 뜻이 직접적이고, 이해하기 쉬웠다.
Hypotheses revisited
29
Hypothesis 1a: The gains of the group assigned to the concordance glossing condition will be lower than those of the groups assigned to the definition-type of glossing conditions.
Confirmed
Hypothesis 1b: The gains of the group assigned to the tooltip-type glossing will be higher than those of the group assigned to the frame-type glossing.
Rejected
Hypothesis 2a: In view of their level of English language proficiency, the group assigned to the concordance glossing condition and the other two groups assigned to definition-type glossing will experience a similar amount of cognitive load.
Confirmed
Hypothesis 2b: The groups assigned to definition-type glossing will rate the usefulness of their glossing type more positively, as definition-type glossing is more familiar to them.
Confirmed
Limitations
30
(1) No pure control group
(2) The participants only experienced one
condition.
Implications for Future Studies
31
A more diverse population (English proficiency,
computer skills)
Study how to present different types of glossing
information in combination in terms of the order
of this presentation or the physical glossing
format for each type of glossary information
References
32
AbuSeileek, A. 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(1), 1281–1291.
Chen, I-J., & Yen, J-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.
Cunningham, S., Moor, P., & Carr, J. C. (2003). Cutting Edge Advanced with Phrase Builder. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (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.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). New roles for FL vocabulary? In L. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), Contemporary applied linguistics volume 1: Language teaching and learning (pp. 99–116). London: Continuum.
Poole, R. (2012). Concordance-based glosses for academic vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal,29(4), 679–693.
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.