IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v6y2016i3p2158244016669548.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Different Glossing Conditions on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Recall

Author

Listed:
  • Tayebeh Danesh
  • Mohammad Taghi Farvardin

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study examined the effects of different glossing conditions on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ vocabulary recall. To this end, five glossing conditions were adopted (i.e., inference-gloss-gloss, gloss-retrieval-gloss, inference-gloss-retrieval-gloss, gloss-retrieval-gloss-retrieval, and full glossing). The participants were 140 MA students of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). They were randomly assigned to one glossing condition to read an English reading passage. Five target words were glossed in different glossing conditions within a reading passage. To ensure the participants’ attention focused on the reading material, the participants were told that a multiple-choice reading comprehension test would be administrated. Afterward, two vocabulary tests (i.e., form recall and meaning recall) were conducted. The results of one-way MANOVAs and the post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that the full glossing condition group did significantly better than other glossing groups in vocabulary form recall, whereas the gloss-retrieval-gloss-retrieval condition group outperformed other four groups in vocabulary meaning recall.

Suggested Citation

  • Tayebeh Danesh & Mohammad Taghi Farvardin, 2016. "A Comparative Study of the Effects of Different Glossing Conditions on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Recall," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:3:p:2158244016669548
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244016669548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244016669548
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244016669548?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:3:p:2158244016669548. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.