R.

Rebman

Eng 568 CALL

Abraham, L.B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer assisted language learning, 21(3), 199226. Summary This article discusses the results of a meta-analysis of 11 studies involving incidental vocabulary learning and reading using computer-mediated glosses. It essentially looks at the sum of quantitative evidence (effect sizes) showing the effectiveness of using these multimedia glosses. Research Questions 1. What is the effect of computer-mediated glosses on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning? 2. What is the relationship between level of instruction and the effects of computer mediated glosses on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning? 3. What is the effect of text type (genre) on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning with computer-mediated glosses? 4. What is the effect of type of assessment on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning with computer-mediated glosses? Results Guidelines for interpreting the mean difference effect size (cohens d) from Cohen (1988): small effect (d is less than .20) medium effect (d is between .21 and .80) large effect (d is greater than .80)

Table 1. Total weighted mean effect sizes. Weighted effect size n M SD Computer-mediated glosses effect on reading comprehension Immediate L2 vocabulary posttests Delayed L2 vocabulary post-tests 11 6 6 .73 1.4 1.25 .26 .29 .26 95% confidence interval Lower Upper .22 .83 .73 1.25 1.98 1.76

R. Rebman Findings

Eng 568 CALL

The computer-mediated glosses were not as useful for beginning learners. Large effect size remained robust for delayed post-test for intermediate learners, but dropped off for beginner learners. Computer-mediated glosses had a medium effect on expository texts and a large effect on narrative texts. There was a comparatively larger effect for receptive than for productive tests that was sustained over time. This aligns with research that shows that L2 learners passive (receptive) vocabulary is larger than their active (productive) vocabulary. Limitations

This study is suspect of the publication bias that meta-analysis in general is guilty of by including studies limited to experimental and quasi-experimental studies involving control groups without access to computer-mediated text glosses and experimental groups with access to such support. The study only investigated research carried out in university/college settings.