CALL and gloss

Looking at the literature of the use of glosses and computers, it can be deduced that research in this area is not new. It can be said that research in the area has stretched over the last two decades. In fact, research in the use of gloss and computer has covered much ground, more so in recent times with the use of multimedia type of glosses for comprehension and language learning. The area of research has been diverse with studies with various theories backing them such as SLA or Multimedia theories.

This strand of research has also looked into the use of such glosses for vocabulary acquisition. Read (2004) writes that glosses with the CALL context has so far “demonstrated that the provision of glosses can assist vocabulary learning from text, without interfering with the reading process” (p. 154).

1.4.1 Type of gloss

In the review of literature of the type of glosses for this study, it has been revealed that glosses are generally helpful for learning vocabulary and comprehension (please see section 2.3.1.1). There has been a lot of research was done on type of glosses. To begin with, Cumming, Cropp and Sussex (1994) carried out research comparing gloss formats. The formats were word or sentence definition on its own, plus a usage example. They found out that sentence definition was most preferred by the ESL students. Similarly, researchers (Hulstijn; 1993; Knight, 1994; Chun & Plass, 1996; Grace, 1998; Lomicka, 1998; Laufer & Hill, 2000; and Yoshii, 2006) indicated that sentence-level definitions of words are helpful for students. However, other researchers (Chun, 2001; Gettys, Imhof & Kautz, 2001; Hegelheimer, 1998) on textual gloss have found out that word definitions and word translations are helpful for students in vocabulary development. It seems that both forms of glosses are beneficial with no clear distinction between them. Therefore, this is one of the questions that this study hopes to answer; are both types of glosses equally beneficial or does word or sentence type of glosses has the edge over the other?

1.4.2. Language of gloss

The language of glosses is also a debatable area. For instance, researchers (Cheng & Good, 2009; Jacobs, Dufon & Hong, 1994; Laufer & Hill, 2000; Yoshii, 2006) found that there was no difference in the role of L1 or L2 glosses. At the other extreme, Hayden (1997) revealed that students hardly consulted other glossing options when there were L1 glosses available. Lomicka (1998) in her sample of university students studying French found out that students had a preference for L1 glosses in definitional-type of glosses. There were also researchers such as Davis and Lyman- Hager (1997), Nagata (1999) and Li (2010) who found out that using the students’ L1 in the gloss is beneficial for the students. In contrast, Miyasako (2002) found out that L2 gloss groups outperformed the L1 gloss group on vocabulary learning.

From the above description, the results of the studies between L1 and L2 show that the language of glosses for vocabulary learning is still inconclusive. Ko (2012) surmised this scenario well by writing that more studies on language of glosses are required as important questions remain unanswered.

1.4.3 Gloss use and proficiency level of students

From the literature review of gloss use, some researchers have pointed out that the proficiency level of the students does play a role in their gloss use or look-up behaviour. Ercetin (2001) and Jacobs, et al. (1994) found that the effectiveness of glosses varies according to the students’ language proficiency. They argued that glosses have a different impact on students with different proficiency levels. Li (2010) who studied 20 Chinese ESL students’ vocabulary retention discovered that both L1 glosses and bilingual dictionaries were effective for students with lower proficiency levels.

Miyasako (2002) and Taylor (2010) claimed that L2 glosses were more effective for students with higher level of proficiency, while L1 glosses were effective for lower proficiency levels. In contrast, Yoshii and Flaitz (2002) found out that there were no significant differences between beginning and intermediate students in the rate of change between the immediate and delayed vocabulary test scores. An early study by Bland, Noblitt, Armington and Gay (1990) revealed that students with higher L2 proficiency preferred L2 glosses. Along the same lines, Ko (2005) pointed out that if the level of proficiency is high enough to understand the definitions in L2, then L2 glosses were more effective than L1 glosses.

Knight (1994), Yoshi (2006) and Abraham (2008) have examined gloss use behaviour and agreed that the language ability of the students affects the way they use the gloss. Recently, Yun (2011) who carried out a meta-analysis of 10 studies on gloss use on reading comprehension and vocabulary learning revealed that proficiency was a statistically significant variable that had made an impact on L2 vocabulary acquisition on beginning students.

From what has been written on type, language of gloss and proficiency level of language learners, it is clear that the whole area of glossing is intense but with no clear understanding of how these variables contribute to SLA.

1.5 The Issue

Looking at the description of the use of glosses and computers, it can be concluded that findings from research in this area have not been distinct. Glosses have been proven to be generally beneficial for learning vocabulary in an already well- researched area; nonetheless, there are still a few issues that need to be addressed in the

area of computer glosses. The issues are: type of glosses, language of glosses, proficiency of students and gloss use.

A closer review of this area shows that there are learners who prefer more straight-forward glosses without the glitter and fancy of multimedia characteristics. Students prefer more direct, straight forward and easier glosses to process. Furthermore, it has been said that multimedia glosses can have the deleterious effect on learning when students’ cognitive abilities are overloaded when they are confronted with such glosses (Mayer, 2001). Another important aspect not to be neglected is that there is a certain threshold, after which technology ceases to be effective. Hence Gettys, Imhof and Kautz (2001) caution that there could be “overruns” of the real needs of users. They argue that the software should follow the principle of “economy of means” (p. 92) rather than extend the information accessible to the learner. In other words, even with all the technology available, one has to reduce the amount of information to the degree of minimum sufficiency for such help to be efficient.

Next are the factors of practicality and ease of developing glosses given the immense volume of online materials which can be glossed. For instance, software designers and classroom instructors would find it difficult to develop complicated glosses for reading passages in their work for computer applications and classroom practices. Suffice to state, it would be less complex and taxing if more straightforward and simpler glosses are designed and used. It would be more cost effective in terms of time and effort. Hence, the way forward would be to revert to basic provisions of glosses as in providing meaning at textual level by using definitions and translations. In fact, there is evidence to show that such glosses are preferred by students (Chun & Plass, 1996; Chun, 2001; Chun, 2006; Levy & Stockwell, 2006). It does appear research on more elementary and clear-cut textual glosses is needed.

Henceforth, the study examines the use of such glosses in vocabulary development by focusing on textual-only glosses; word and sentence in the students’ L1 and L2.

Following this are the issues of language of glosses and the proficiency of the students in using glosses. It is seen that there has been no clear answer to this question of whether L1 or L2 is more effective as the language of glosses for language learning. To compound matters, is the uncertainty of how students with different language proficiency levels make use of glosses and benefit from them. Therefore, more research has to be undertaken before these issues are ironed out.

Finally, the Input-Interactionist model in SLA and its interlink of hypotheses are extended to a CALL environment to examine if it is a useable and efficient model for language learning in a different context.