Language Learning

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333
The Effect of Frequency of Input-

Enhancements on Word Learning
and Text Comprehension
Susanne Rott
University of Illinois at Chicago
Research on second language lexical development during reading has found positive
effects for word frequency, the provision of glosses, and elaborative word processing.
However, findings have been inconclusive regarding the effect of such intervention
tasks on long-term retention. Likewise, few studies have looked at the cumulative effect
of interventions on word learning or text comprehension. This investigation sought
to assess the effect of increased frequency of target words (TWs) comparing lexical
gain of words that occurred once (F1) or four times (F4) in the input passage. The
study further investigated the combined effect of frequency (F4) and semantic or visual
enhancements. It compared the following reading conditions: (a) TWs were glossed four
times in the text (four-gloss: 4G); (b) TWs were first glossed, then retrieved in the first
language, and bolded twice (gloss-retrieval: GR); and (c) TWs were first glossed and
then bolded three times (gloss-bolding: GB). In addition, the study assessed the effect of
these interventions on long-term retention (4–6 weeks) of lexical knowledge and on text
comprehension. Findings revealed that the GR and 4G reading conditions resulted in
more productive word gain than the GB condition or when readers encountered a TW only
once. Repeated visual enhancements seemed to have no effect on strengthening word
encoding. The comprehension of main ideas was highest when the TW was glossed four
times followed by the gloss-bolding reading condition and the gloss-retrieval task.
Keywords classroom research; lexical acquisition; text comprehension; input enhance-

ment; frequency; lexical retention
Textual input is generally assumed to be an important source for second lan-

guage (L2) lexical development because reading fosters L2 learners’ fluency in
word recognition (e.g., Hulstijn, 2001), and texts provide readers with meaning-
bearing, semantically, syntactically, and pragmatically rich input (e.g., Krashen,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susanne Rott, Department of

Germanic Studies 189, University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 S. Morgan, Chicago, IL 60607.
Internet: srott@uic.edu
Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 165

C 2007 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
!
Susanne Rott The Effect of Frequency of Input-Enhancements
1993). Logically, L2 learners need to master such aspects of the lexicon to reach
advanced and near-native-speakers’ language abilities (Judd, 1978; Nation,
2001; Richards, 1976). Given the undeniable advantage of reading for lex-
ical development, the educationally relevant question remains: Which word
interventions (a) increase the rate of word learning through reading, (b) fos-
ter target word retention, and (c) further or at least do not interfere with text
comprehension?
Research has repeatedly shown that encountering an unfamiliar word in a text
or even comprehending it in its context might not lead to an initial assignment
of meaning to the orthographical representation of the word (i.e., a lexical form-
meaning connection [FMC], which is accessible after completing the reading
task). Accordingly, it is well accepted that comprehension and learning are
not the same phenomenon (e.g., Lee & VanPatten, 1995; Sharwood Smith,
1986). Whereas text comprehension aims at interpreting the message content,
word learning aims at establishing FMCs to build a lexical system. In fact,
reading a text for meaning (i.e., creating a mental representation of the text)
requires the rapid integration of text-based and learner-based information. The
reader constructs a textbase primarily via parsing or bottom-up processing of the
textual input. The textbase consists of “those elements directly derived from the
text itself. [. . .] In general, this procedure yields an impoverished and often even
incoherent network” (Kintsch, 1998, p. 103). To obtain a coherent structure,
the reader must interconnect the propositions in a network by complementing
inferences and activating and integrating existing knowledge sources. Kintsch
called the resulting reconstruction “the situation model of the text.” Encoding
a new word in the mental lexicon, on the other hand, seems to require that
readers first notice the gap in the mental lexicon. Next, readers need to isolate
the word from its context (Prince, 1996) and allocate attentional resources to its
orthographic and semantic properties (e.g., Schmidt, 2001). To consolidate the
word in the mental lexicon, the reader must recognize the relationship between
the lexical form and its meaning, which involves some form of elaboration
by associating the word with existing knowledge sources or maintaining it in
working memory (WM) for rehearsal (e.g., Ellis, 1994; Gass, 1997; Hulstijn,
2001). If no word meaning is directly provided with the text, readers have to
experience the need to search for and infer meaning (e.g., Laufer & Hulstijn,
2001) by integrating semantic and syntactic aspects of the word using multiple
strategic resources (Ellis).
What becomes clear is that not only are the cognitive mechanisms in-
volved in reading comprehension and lexical acquisition different, they might
even be in conflict. In particular, if we follow the assumption that WM is a

limited-capacity processing system (e.g., Barcroft, 2002; Ellis, 2001; VanPat-

ten, 1996), learners can only attend to a limited amount of material at a time
and naturally pay more attention to some aspects of language than to others.
Therefore, constraints exist on the maximum amount of resources a L2 reader
has available for comprehending a text and storing new words. In particular,
this might be the case when texts are enhanced with word interventions that
are favorable for promoting word gain. Readers’ attentional resources might
be consumed by word encoding processes, not leaving sufficient resources for
reconstructing the text. Likewise, it is possible that readers direct their atten-
tion to reconstructing propositions containing word interventions while passing
over propositions without interventions (Rott & Williams, 2003). The goal of
the present investigation was to shed more light on some of these issues by
assessing and comparing the effect of three word intervention tasks on text
comprehension and the learning and retention of vocabulary.
Review of Research
Cognitive Resources
Many researchers agree with Schmidt’s (2001) position that the allocation of
attentional resources is necessary for learning to take place. However, learners’
own attention-drawing mechanisms might not be sufficient. L2 readers might
skip words because they do not perceive them as relevant for text compre-
hension (Hulstijn, 1993), thereby making word learning through reading rather
unpredictable. Hence, lexical enhancements and intervention tasks, which guide
the readers’ attention to specific words, increase the likelihood for word gain.
Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) have proposed motivational (need) and cognitive
(search and evaluation) factors that seem to be crucial for word learning. These
factors are subsumed in the Involvement Load Hypothesis, which predicts that
the higher the involvement load, the higher the possibility for incidental vo-
cabulary learning. Learners reach the highest level of involvement when they
(a) intrinsically perceive the need to learn rather than respond to an external
stimulus, (b) search for rather than receive the meaning, and (c) make a deci-
sion as to how the new word will combine with additional words in an original
sentence rather than simply recognize differences between words by choosing
a correct meaning in a fill-in-the-blank task. This ideal combination of moti-
vational and cognitive involvement might, however, not be pertinent for word
learning during reading: First, L2 readers might not perceive the need to infer
meaning to a particular word when they comprehend the context without ex-
plicitly assigning a meaning to an unfamiliar word (Parry, 1993, 1997). Second,
167 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

studies have repeatedly shown that when readers choose to search for meaning
in the text, they often infer meanings incorrectly or are unable to guess at all (see
review in Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996). Finally, evaluating meaning
usage in receptive and productive tasks has shown mixed results for learning.
Readers who engaged in pedagogical activities after having read the text and
who received the word meaning outperformed readers who received an unen-
hanced text (e.g., Laufer 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000). Yet, output tasks
were less effective for word learning when meaning was not provided explicitly
and when readers engaged in output during reading (Rott & Williams, 2003;
Rott, Williams, & Cameron, 2002). Additionally, prompting readers to engage
in output tasks, such as text reconstruction, during reading seemed to interfere
with text comprehension (Rott et al.).
Word Intervention Through Glosses

The Involvement Load Hypothesis predicts that providing readers with glosses
might not be an efficient way to increase the rate of word learning because
glosses only trigger the readers’ need extrinsically and there is no intrinsically
motivated search or evaluation processes. Indeed, comparing the effect of read-
ing a text with first language (L1) glosses with a composition task, Laufer and
Hulstijn (2001) found that the composition group significantly outperformed
the reading condition. However, the researchers were mainly concerned with
word learning, rather than reading as a tool to simultaneously provide seman-
tically and pragmatically rich lexical input and present content information.
Other studies compared the effect of glosses with an unenhanced control con-
dition. Watanabe (1997) found that readers in an L2 gloss condition gained
significantly more words on the immediate as well as on the delayed posttest
(2 weeks), as did Hulstijn et al. (1996) for L1 glosses. However, their delayed
posttest took place after 1 hr. In turn, Ko (1995) observed that L1 glosses had
a significant effect on the delayed posttest (2 weeks) but not on the immedi-
ate posttest. In contrast, Jacobs, Dufon, and Hong (1994) found a significant
effect on an immediate posttest for L1 and L2 glosses. However, the effect
disappeared 4 weeks later. These mixed results warrant future investigations
comparing the effect of glosses with other input-based intervention tasks and
developing further insights into the effect of glosses for long-term word gain.
Word Enhancement Through Repeated Occurrences and Focused

Attention
In general, processing a new word repeatedly in one or multiple texts has been
found to be conducive to incidental word learning (for a review, see Horst, Cobb,

& Meara, 1998; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003;
Zahar, Cobb, & Spada, 2001). Studies found a relationship between frequency
of exposure and acquisition, in particular for beginning learners (Zahar et al.),
with sizable learning gains for words that appeared at least eight (Horst et
al.) or more times in a text. Yet, even after encountering a word 15 times,
Waring and Takaki found that word knowledge diminished drastically within
3 months, underscoring again the need for long-term studies. Ellis (e.g., 2004)
explained why repeated encounters might fail to result in learning. Readers
might not allocate sufficient attentional resources, might not isolate the word
from the context, or might establish associations with the word during each
encounter, thereby lacking processing mechanisms that strengthen and retain a
form-meaning connection after it has been established. Therefore, instruction
or enhanced materials might be crucial to direct L2 readers’ attention to words
to increase the potential of processing. Even though focused attention to new
words might not be as effective as for syntactic and morphosyntactic aspects
of language, Gass, Svetics, and Lemelin (2003) found that guiding readers’
attention to new words, with an input and inferencing practice task, had a
significantly stronger impact on word learning than a task that directed readers’
attention away from the target words (TWs). Furthermore, Hulstijn et al. (1996)
manipulated attention and word frequency by comparing word learning of L2
readers whose text was enhanced with glosses and readers whose text was not
enhanced. In both conditions, TWs occurred either one or three times. Findings
revealed a significant cumulative effect for glosses and frequency on two tests
that were administered within 1 hr. The study did not provide any information
about the effect on long-term word retention.
Text Comprehension and Word Interventions

There is an inconclusive body of SLA research concerning (a) the relationship
between word learning and text comprehension and (b) the effect of word in-
terventions on text comprehension. In some studies, the texts were altered by
increasing the occurrences of the TWs, others enhanced new words visually
(e.g., bolding), yet others provided additional semantic clues for TWs (e.g., L1
or L2 glosses, appositives, dictionary access).
In one study that manipulated the frequency of word occurrences, Rott
(1997) found a moderate to strong positive correlation between text recall and
immediate gain and retention of TWs; that is, participants who achieved greater
levels of text comprehension were more likely to retain new words over an
extended period of time. In a L1 study, Moravcsik and Healy (1998) measured
the effect of visual word enhancements on text comprehension. They found

that placing words in boldface led to a worse performance on comprehension

questions than highlighting all words or no words in a text. There was, however,
only a trend with no significant negative effect of bolding individual words on
a text summary task. The researchers did not provide an explanation for these
findings.
The effect of word interventions, which provided semantic clues about the
TW meaning, also led to mixed results regarding the comprehension of the text.
Based on open-ended questions, Watanabe (1997) found that only single glosses
aided comprehension, whereas multiple-choice glosses and appositives did not.
Similarly, Davis (1989) and Jacobs (1994) found a superior effect for glosses
as compared to an unenhanced condition. Rott et al. (2002), on the other hand,
found a significant increase in text recall for readers who received multiple-
choice glosses as well as readers who simultaneously engaged in an input-output
cycle task, compared to the control group, which read an unenhanced text. In
contrast, Johnson (1982) and Pak (1986) did not find a positive effect of L1
glosses for text comprehension. Neither did Jacobs et al. (1994), who guided
their readers’ attention to TWs by providing marginal L1 and L2 glosses. For
both treatment conditions as well as the control group, which did not receive any
enhancement, they found a significant correlation between text comprehension
and word gain. However, unlike in the study by Rott (1997), they found no
significant relationship 4 weeks later; that is, word retention was not related to
text comprehension.
The studies reviewed here revealed several issues that bear further investi-
gation. First, concerning text comprehension, conclusive evidence is lacking for
the effect of visually enhancing and simultaneously glossing words. One reason
might be the inconsistency in measures used to assess text comprehension. Sec-
ond, although there seems to be a strong relationship between word learning and
text comprehension when L2 learners read unenhanced texts, the relationship
between text comprehension and word retention remains unclear when texts are
enhanced with glosses. Third, research to date has looked at word interventions
separately, not paying attention to potential cumulative effects, particularly on
long-term retention. Directing L2 readers’ attention to new words by providing
glosses or increasing word occurrences in a text can improve the likelihood of
establishing and strengthening lexical FMCs. Glosses ensure a correct word
encoding in the mental lexicon, whereas increased occurrences seem to foster
robustness. Fourth, the effect of frequency of word interventions has only been
explored minimally. Enhancing a word in a text only once might not result
in rehearsal of meaning or accessing existing knowledge sources and might

lead to activating only a partial set of learning mechanisms (e.g., rehearsal,

activating existing knowledge sources). Repeated word enhancements increase
the potential for establishing FMCs.
Research Questions
The current investigation sought to assess the combined effect of the frequency
of word occurrences in the input passage and word intervention tasks: input-
only tasks designed to stimulate rehearsal and a word-retrieval task designed
to stimulate access to knowledge sources. Additionally, the study examined
the role of text comprehension in word learning. Thus, participants read texts
that contained unfamiliar words, with the purpose of gaining an overall un-
derstanding of the content. Each participant read texts under three different
treatment conditions: (a) TWs were glossed four times in the text (four-gloss:
4G); (b) TWs were first glossed, then retrieved in the L1, and bolded twice
(gloss-retrieval: GR); and (c) TWs were first glossed and then bolded three
times (gloss-bolding: GB). In addition, the study investigated the effect of in-
creased frequency of word enhancements, comparing word gain of TWs that
occurred once (F1) glossed or four times (F4, see above treatments) in the input
passage. More specifically, the current study investigated the following research
questions:
1. Which level of word knowledge, productive or receptive, do readers in the
four-gloss, gloss-retrieval, and gloss-bolding interventions attain during
reading?
2. Is the level of word knowledge retained over time?
3. Which of the three gloss interventions leads to more immediate word gain?
Is the level of word knowledge gain, receptive or productive, the same in
all three treatments?
4. Which of the three gloss interventions leads to more word retention? Is the
level of word knowledge retention, receptive or productive, the same in all
three treatments?
5. Which word frequency (F1 or F4) leads to more TW gain? Is the level of
receptive and productive word knowledge gain the same?
6. What is the effect of the different reading treatments (four-gloss, gloss-
retrieval, and gloss-bolding) on text comprehension?
The level of word knowledge gain referred to one level of productive (ac-
tive recall) and two levels of receptive (passive recall, passive recognition)

word knowledge gain (Laufer, Elder, Hill, & Congdon, 2004). Productive word
knowledge was interpreted as a higher level of word gain than receptive knowl-
edge (see assessment tasks below).
Hypotheses
Level of Word Gain (Within-Treatment)
Hypothesis 1: Immediate measure. In the GR and 4G treatment conditions,
participants will gain equal productive and receptive word
knowledge. In the GB treatment condition, participants will
gain less productive than receptive knowledge.
Hypothesis 2: Delayed measure. In the GR condition, participants will retain
the level of word knowledge over 5–8 weeks, whereas in the 4G
and GB conditions, the level of word knowledge will decrease;
that is, word gain in the GR condition will be more robust than
in the two other treatment conditions.
Number of Words Gained (Between-Treatment)

Hypothesis 3: Immediate measure. Word learning will be the same for the
GR and the 4G condition and lower for the GB condition
(GR = 4G > GB).
Hypothesis 4: Delayed measure. The GR condition will lead to better word
retention scores than the 4G condition. Word retention scores
will be lowest for the GB condition (GR > 4G > GB).
These four hypotheses were based on the following considerations:

A gloss obtrusively directs the readers’ attention to the TW. While readers
look for the gloss in the margin of the text, they isolate the lexical form from
the surrounding words in the text. As the readers process the word meaning
provided in the gloss, the word meaning might stay long enough in WM to be
rehearsed. These processes, isolation and rehearsal, might foster establishing
an initial connection between the lexical form and its meaning. Repeatedly
processing glosses for the same word might result in the long-term retention of
word meaning.
Likewise, GR is an obtrusive intervention that might strengthen word en-
coding. The prompt to provide the L1 translation of the TW requires readers to
access the encoded TW meaning in the mental lexicon. In this study, this was
the encoding established during the first glossed encounter. Retrieval reinforces
the L2-L1 word association, which has been described to be a crucial step in
lexical development (e.g., Jiang, 2002). If readers in the current investigation

were not able to retrieve the word meaning, they could search for the gloss
provided earlier in the text and establish a connection between the lexical form
and its meaning. This search for meaning was also assumed to foster retention
(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).
In contrast, a bolded TW occurrence is less obtrusive than a gloss or a
retrieval intervention. It directs the readers’ attention to the TW form but does
not necessarily trigger or involve the processing of meaning (see Izumi, 2002,
for an overview of input enhancement).
Frequency of Encounter
Hypothesis 5: The number of words learned and the level of receptive and
productive word knowledge gain will be higher for words that
occur four times (F4) in the text than for words that occur only
once glossed (F1). This hypothesis was based on the assump-
tion that encountering a TW four times stimulated word learn-
ing processes, such as rehearsal, elaboration, accessing exist-
ing knowledge sources, and search for meaning. One glossed
encounter provided fewer opportunities to stimulate learning
processes (F4 > F1).
Text Comprehension
Hypothesis 6: The comprehension of main ideas will be highest for the 4G
condition, whereas the GR and the GB condition will lead to
less comprehension of main ideas. This hypothesis was based
on the consideration that glosses guided the participants’ at-
tention to comprehending propositions that contained glossed
TWs, as found in a study by Rott and Williams (2003). Addi-
tionally, the glossed words occurred in main ideas of the pas-
sages. Therefore, in the GR and the GB conditions, readers’
attention was guided only to the propositions that contained
the first gloss of each TW. Bolding of words was expected to
be less obtrusive and did not overtly direct the readers’ atten-
tion to the propositional content of the sentences containing the
TWs, as compared to sentences containing glossed TWs (4G >
GR > GB).
Method
Participants
Fifty-four learners of German volunteered to participate in the study. Partici-
pants were native speakers of English in four intact fourth-semester language

classes (about 110 contact hours at the beginning of the study). Participants who
had not taken the first three semesters of German in the program had tested into
these sections by taking a placement test. Data provided by 16 of the learners
had to be dropped from the final analysis because either they did not complete
the three treatments or missed the posttest. Results of the study were based on
38 participants.
Materials
Treatment Passages
Three input passages of varying length were loosely adapted from a version in
intermediate German textbooks (Holschuh, 1989; Leblans, et al., 2000): Ein
unkonventionelles Leben, Philadelphia, and Sarahs Stein. Two expository texts
and one narrative text on different topics were chosen to accommodate different
student interests and maintain their motivation to read three texts that were not
part of the class materials. No special background or cultural knowledge was
necessary to comprehend the texts. All three texts were shortened (Leben 411
words, Philadelphia 321 words, Stein 337 words) so that they could easily be
read in a 50-min class session. Shortening and including four repetitions of
four TWs required some changes in the plots. One near-native speaker and two
native speakers of German who are experienced language instructors read and
verified the texts for comprehensibility, coherence, and appropriateness for the
language level of the participants.
Each participant read all three texts under three different conditions (GR,
4G, GB; see Research Questions section). It is generally acknowledged that
topic, text characteristics, text comprehension, and the TWs might influence
which unknown words learners choose to deal with. Therefore, if participants’
learning behavior across three independent treatment passages and the corre-
sponding TWs was the same, findings could be attributed to the treatment tasks,
increasing the generalizability of the results.
Target Words
Each text contained eight TWs, all of which were nouns. To ensure that
the TWs were unknown to the participants, low-frequency items and regional
colloquialisms were used in the passages. Sociolinguistic, pragmatic, or other
connotational aspects of individual TWs were not accounted for in the study.1
For example, the TW Köter has a negative connotation meaning “cur” or “stray
dog.” In the passage, it was used for the nonjudgmental word Hund (dog). TWs
occurred either one or four times in the treatment passage (Table 1). TWs that
occurred four times (F4) in the text were presented in either the GR, the 4G,
or the GB treatment condition. TWs that occurred only once (F1) were also

Table 1 The 24 target words of the three treatment passages by frequency (F1 and F4)
Text F1 Words F4 Words
Sarahs Stein Krach Noise Geplapper Chatting

Gedanken Thoughts Bude Apartment
Sträucher Bushes Karre Car
Eichhörnchen Squirrel Friedhof Graveyard
Philadelphia Metzger Butcher Vieh Livestock
Getreide Crops Acker Field
Besitz Possession Bauern Farmers
Lehrling Apprentice Kaff Village
Ein unkonventionelles Laden Store Klamotten Clothes
Leben Spende Donation Knete Money
Gestank Smell Obdachloser Homeless
Säge Saw Köter Dog
glossed. Previous investigations have shown that learning occurs when words
are glossed once (see Review of Research section). However, it is generally
accepted that incidental word acquisition is a cumulative process and requires
repeated encounters to establish robust word encodings in the mental lexicon.
Even though studies have found that 8–12 encounters might be necessary (for a
comprehensive review, see Nation, 2001), more than four encounters would have
been unnatural in the fairly short texts used for this study. All TWs were bolded
in the text. The TW glosses were provided as L1 translations in the margin of the
text. Each repetition of a gloss in the 4G condition looked the same, providing
the same L1 meaning. In the GR condition, readers were prompted (e.g., “What
does Köter mean in English?”) to provide the L1 translation of the TW in the
margin of the text.
Both F1 and F4 TWs were essential to the main ideas of each passage.
English-German bilinguals were asked to read the texts in German and retell
them in English. These baseline story text reconstructions (see below) showed
that not all four TWs and all occurrences were of equal importance to passage
comprehension. Yet, the use of each of the TWs was essential to reconstructing
the passage.
Assessment
Vocabulary Pretest
To ensure that TWs were unfamiliar to all participants, a vocabulary checklist
test was administered prior to the reading treatment. Students received a list of

44 lexical items, including the 24 TWs and 20 distracters. Students were asked
to explain, in English, what each one meant, even if they had only a vague idea,
and to cross out only the words that they did not know at all.
Vocabulary Posttests
Word gain was assessed with three measures immediately after each reading
task and then 4–6 weeks later.2 The first posttest measured word gain of the eight
TWs readers had just encountered in the input passage. The delayed posttest
assessed word knowledge retention of all 24 TWs from the three treatment
passages. The order of TWs was randomized.
Based on Laufer et al.’s (2004) Computer Adaptive Test of Size and Strength
(CATSS),3 the current study assessed participants’ level of receptive and pro-
ductive word knowledge gain during reading. Three different levels were mea-
sured. First, participants received an active recall (AR; level 1) task, which
assessed productive word knowledge. The L1 translation of the TW was pre-
sented and participants were prompted to produce the TW in the L2. The next
level assessed readers’ receptive word gain with a passive recall (PR; level
2) task. The L2 TW was presented and readers were prompted to provide the
L1 translation. The third test, the passive recognition (R; level 3) task, also
assessed the readers’ receptive word knowledge gain. This task was less diffi-
cult and required the least word knowledge because participants received three
L1 meanings (one correct, two distracters, and a “don’t know” option) and
were prompted to choose the correct meaning of the L2 TW. Even though the
three measures are treated as independent measures, they have an implicational
relationship. Therefore, in addition to the eight TWs, the test contained 22 dis-
tracter items that were either taken from the text or fitted the topic of the passage
content. Distracters were added so that learners would not be able to rehearse
word meanings from the level 1 test, which provided the L1 translation, and
transfer it to levels 2 and 3, which required readers to produce (level 2) or
choose (level 3) the L1 translation from multiple options (see the Appendix for
assessment tasks).
Text Comprehension
Before starting the reading treatment, students were informed that after com-
pleting the entire text, they would have to retell, in English, the content of
the passage as completely as possible. This was done to ensure that partici-
pants focused on meaning during the reading assignment. Text comprehension
was assessed in their L1, English, so that their L2 production skills would not
interfere with the demonstration of text comprehension.

Scoring and Analysis

Word Gain
Two independent raters scored the level 1 (AR: L1 to L2 translation) and the
level 2 (PR: L2 to L1 translation/explanation) task. The correct provision of the
TW in the AR task received a score of 1; a correct translation or explanation
of the TW in the PR task also received a score of 1. An incorrect translation
(AR and PR) or explanation (PR) in either task received a score of 0. Interrater
reliability was 94%. The disagreements (6%) were resolved between the two
raters. Scoring the level 3 (R) task was a matter of counting correctly checked
answers for the four possible choices. A correct answer received a score of 1;
an incorrect choice received a score of 0. Scores for each level of receptive and
productive knowledge were tallied separately.
Text Comprehension
The goal was to determine whether students had understood the basic
event structure of each text. Therefore, the texts were reduced to a set of
chronologically ordered main and supporting ideas, based on five German na-
tive and near-native speaker retellings and the researcher’s notion of what was
most important in the stories (Table 2). For Sarahs Stein (M = 19.2; SD = 1.92),
19 propositions were created; for Philadelphia (M = 16; SD = 1.14), there were
16; and for Ein unkonventionelles Leben 28 (M = 28; SD = 0.71). In addition,
the researcher established a list of supporting ideas. For Sarahs Stein, 17 sup-
porting ideas were counted; for Philadelphia, 12 were counted; and for Ein
unkonventionelles Leben, 17 were counted. To calculate text comprehension,
each proposition received one point. Main and supporting ideas were separately
tallied. No partial credit was given. Two raters scored the participants’ retellings
with interrater reliabilities of 94% (Sarahs Stein) and 96% (Philadelphia and
Ein unkonventionelles Leben). Disagreements were discussed and resolved be-
tween the two raters.
Table 2 Number of main and supporting ideas of the input passages
Input passage Main ideas Supporting ideas
Sarahs Stein 19 17
Philadelphia 16 12
Ein unkonventionelles Leben 28 17
Total 63 46

Procedure
During the second week of the semester, learners signed a participation agree-
ment and completed the vocabulary checklist test. The reading treatments were
administered in weeks 5, 6, and 7 by the regular instructor during their normal
50-min class session. Each treatment packet included instructions, the treatment
text of one of the three reading conditions (4G, GR, GB), the L1 retelling, and
the immediate vocabulary posttests (AR, PR, and R). Each participant com-
pleted all three treatments, one in each treatment session (weeks 5, 6, and 7).
Treatments were counterbalanced and administered in different orders under
different text/task combinations (Table 3). The TWs were considered a random
factor because they occurred in three different passages and were encountered
under different reading conditions.
Students were told that they had 30 min to complete the reading task but
that they should proceed through the packet at their own pace. Instructors were
told to alert participants to start the L1 retelling at the latest after 30 min and
the vocabulary tests after 40 min. In addition, instructors were asked to note the
time when students handed in their treatment package. Moreover, students were
informed that the packets varied and that they should not be alarmed if some
students turned pages at different intervals. Four weeks after the last treatment,
in week 11, lexical retention of all 24 TWs was assessed with the same three
vocabulary tasks. Students had 20 min to complete them.
Analysis
For Research Questions 1–5, the statistical analyses were based on a within-
subject design: 3 (gloss treatment condition) × 3 (word gain measure) × 2 (time)
Table 3 Setup of treatments
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Vocabulary pretest–2 weeks prior to treatment

Treatment 1–week 1 Text 1-GR Text 2-4G Text 3-GB
Immediate vocabulary test
Treatment 2–week 2 Text 2-GB Text 3-GR Text 1-4G
Treatment 3–week 3 Text 3-4G Text 1-GB Text 2-GR
Delayed vocabulary test–4 weeks later
Note. Treatment conditions: 4G: four-gloss; GR: gloss-retrieval; GB: one gloss.

× 2 (frequency). The independent variables were the gloss treatment condition

(GR, 4G, GB), word gain measure (AR, PR, and R), time (immediate and
delayed vocabulary test), and frequency of TW occurrence (F1: once glossed;
or F4: GR, 4G, GB). The dependent variables were scores of three levels of
vocabulary learning: AR, PR, and R. Text was not included in the analysis
because this variable was counterbalanced across participants. This created an
N size of 38 for each cell. Effect size measures reported as eta squared (η2 )
were computed as partial η2 because of four independent variables. For Research
Question 6, the statistical analysis was based on the following design: 2 (type
of idea unit) × 3 (type of treatment condition). Independent variables were the
three different treatment conditions (GR, FG, GB) and type of idea unit (main
and supporting ideas). The dependent variables were the L1 retell scores for
main and supporting idea units.
Results
Means and standard deviations for the three levels of TW gain in the three F4 and
the F1 treatment conditions are reported in Table 4. In order to answer Research
Questions 1–5, a 3 × 3 × 2 × 2 MANOVA was conducted. The analysis showed
significant main effects for treatment condition, word measure, time of word
knowledge measure, and word frequency (Table 5). These main effects were
Table 4 Means and standard deviations of word gain measured immediately and 5–8
weeks after the treatment
Treatment Condition
Gloss-retrieval Four-gloss Gloss-bolding
Time AR PR R AR PR R AR PR R
4 TW occurrences 2.82 3.66 3.71 2.84 3.47 3.63 .53 2.53 3.18
(0.73) (0.48) (0.46) (1.05) (0.69) (0.54) (0.73) (0.95) (0.68)
1 TW occurrence 0.24 2.00 3.24 0.26 2.00 3.03 0.21 2.03 3.05
(0.43) (0.84) (0.71) (0.64) (0.84) (0.64) (0.48) (0.85) (0.61)
Delayed
4 TW occurrences 1.82 3.18 3.53 1.55 2.79 3.29 0.11 1.57 3.26
(0.69) (0.77) (0.60) (0.60) (0.70) (0.52) (0.39) (0.98) (0.50)
1 TW occurrence 0.39 2.26 3.08 0.37 2.18 3.26 0.21 2.24 3.16
(0.75) (0.95) (0.63) (0.75) (0.98) (0.65) (0.47) (0.88) (0.56)
Note. N = 38. Maximum word gain score was four in each cell. Assessment tasks:
active recall (AR), passive recall (PR), passive recognition (R).

qualified by significant two-way, three-way and four-way interactions (Table 5).

Overall effect sizes (η2 ) were high with the exception of the main effect for
time and interactions involving time; that is, the amount of word gain varied
across the three different measures for words that learners encountered one or
four times in the three different treatment conditions. In addition, the amount of
word knowledge varied across time (although a comparatively small proportion
of variance in word gain scores was attributable to the time word gain was
measured). To directly address research questions, main effects and interactions
were followed up with ANOVAs and pairwise comparisons of least significant
difference (LSD) of least square means. In order to avoid Type I errors, a
Bonferroni correction was used to adjust the confidence interval.
Research Question 1 determined the highest level of word knowledge gain
in each F4 gloss treatment (4G, GR, GB). AR was considered the highest level,
followed by PR and R (see assessment tasks in the Methods section). The
significant main effects for word learning measure and time and the significant
interaction between measure and time (Table 5) were followed up with two
repeated-measures ANOVAs: one with word gain scores assessed immediately
after the treatment and one with word retention scores. For the immediate scores,
Table 5 Multivariate test (MANOVA) of 3 (Gloss treatment condition) × 3 (Word gain

measure) × 2 (Time) × 2 (Frequency) Design
Hypothesis Error Eta

Effect F df df Sig. squared
Treatment condition (TC) 70.33 2 36 .00 .80

Measure (M) 1,567.30 2 36 .00 .99
Time (T) 20.61 1 37 .00 .36
Frequency (F) 220.77 1 37 .00 .86
TC × M 40.09 4 34 .00 .83
TC × T 0.98 2 36 .39 .05
M×T 19.41 2 36 .00 .52
TC × M × T 3.31 4 34 .00 .28
TC × F 51.42 2 36 .00 .74
M×F 107.15 2 36 .00 .85
TC × M × F 25.53 4 34 .00 .75
T×F 10.13 1 37 .00 .62
TC × T × F 2.02 2 36 .15 .10
M×T×F 14.68 2 36 .00 .45
TC × M × T × F 5.07 4 34 .00 .37
Note. N = 38; p < .05

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated,
χ 2 (35) = 213.27, p < .05; therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using
Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .36). The ANOVA showed that
readers had gained different levels of receptive and productive word knowledge,
F(2.87, 106.08) = 81.79, p = .00, η2 = .69. Likewise, for the word retention
scores, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been vio-
lated, χ 2 (35) = 126.24, p < .05; therefore degrees of freedom were corrected us-
ing Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .56). The ANOVA showed
that readers had also retained different levels of receptive and productive word
knowledge, F(4.51, 166.96) = 118.69, p = .00, η2 = .76.
Table 6 presents the results of pairwise comparisons (LSD) of least square
means of the three assessment tasks (AR, PR, R). The results showed the same
word gain pattern when readers encountered the TWs in the GR and the 4G
treatments immediately after reading the input passage. Readers’ word gain
scores yielded significantly more receptive (PR and R) than productive word
knowledge (AR). Both receptive measures yielded the same amount of word
Table 6 Mean differences with confidence intervals (CI) of post hoc pairwise compar-
isons, using least significant difference (LSD), of three levels of word knowledge gain
for the F4 treatment conditions
Treatment condition
Gloss-retrieval Four-gloss Gloss-bolding

AR vs. PR −0.84∗ −0.63∗ −2.00∗
99% CI −1.14, −0.53 −0.95, −0.32 −2.32, −1.68
AR vs. R −0.90∗ −0.78∗ −2.63∗
99% CI −1.20, −0.59 −1.18, −0.40 −2.96, −2.30
PR vs. R −.05 −0.16 −0.63∗
99% CI −0.15, 0.04 −0.35, 0.02 −1.05, −0.22
Delayed vocabulary test
AR vs. PR −1.37∗ −1.24∗ −1.47∗
99% CI −1.76, −0.98 −1.61, −.86 −1.85, −1.09
AR vs. R −1.71∗ −1.74∗ −3.16∗
99% CI −2.08, −1.34 −2.10, −1.37 −3.44, −2.88
PR vs. R −0.34∗ −0.50∗ −1.68∗
99% CI −0.60, −0.11 −0.77, −0.23 −2.11, −1.26
Note. N = 38 in each cell. ∗ p < .01, Bonferroni adjustment; CI = confidence interval
upper and lower. Assessment tasks: active recall (AR), passive recall (PR), passive
recognition (R).

gain, indicating that multiple-choice options (R) did not aid word knowledge
retrieval from the mental lexicon. Yet, on the delayed posttest, 4–6 weeks
after the reading treatment, the multiple-choice task (R) yielded more word
knowledge than the passive recall (PR) and the active recall assessment task
(AR), indicating that multiple-choice options aided word knowledge retrieval
significantly.
In contrast, when readers encountered the TWs four times in the GB treat-
ment, word gain scores were highest for the R task and significantly lower for
the PR and the AR tasks. This was the case on the immediate and on the delayed
measure. Readers gained significantly more receptive than productive knowl-
edge and benefited from the availability of multiple-choice options for word
knowledge retrieval.
These findings partially confirmed Hypothesis 1; that is, there was no dis-
tinct word learning advantage to develop productive word knowledge during
reading for either of two ways: encountering a word four times glossed or glossed
once plus a retrieval prompt. In both treatments, readers developed more recep-
tive than productive word knowledge. As predicted, the GB treatment resulted
in less productive than receptive word gain.
The data analysis for Research Question 2, which assessed whether the ini-
tial level of word knowledge (AR, PR, R) was retained across 4–6 weeks, further
explored these results (Table 7). Pairwise comparisons (LSD) of immediate and
posttest scores showed that after all three treatments (GR, 4G, and GB), word
knowledge gain was only robust on the R vocabulary measure, the lowest level
of word gain. In fact, word knowledge of the highest level, AR (GR condition
Table 7 Mean differences with confidence intervals (CI) of post hoc pairwise com-
parisons, using least significant difference (LSD), of immediate and delayed word gain
scores in the F4 treatment conditions
Assessment task
Treatment AR PR R
∗ ∗
Gloss-retrieval 1.00 0.47 0.18
99% CI 0.73, 1.27 0.12, 0.83 −0.10, 0.47
Four-gloss 1.29∗ 0.68∗ 0.34
99% CI 0.80, 1.78 0.31, 1.06 0.00, 0.67
Gloss-bolding 0.42∗ 0.95∗ −0.11
99% CI 0.16, 0.69 0.55, 1.34 −0.51, 0 .30
Note. N = 38. ∗ p < .01, Bonferroni adjustment. Assessment tasks: active recall (AR),
passive recall (PR), passive recognition (R).

from 71% to 46%, 4G condition from 71% to 39%, and GB condition from
13% to 2%, respectively) and the middle level, PR (GR condition from 92%
to 80%, 4G condition from 87% to 70%, and GB condition from 63% to 39%,
respectively) dropped significantly across 4–6 weeks.
These results partially confirmed Hypothesis 2. Contrary to the initial as-
sumption, the GR treatment did not result in an advantage on long-term word
encoding in the mental lexicon compared to 4G TW encounters. As predicted,
productive word knowledge decreased within 6 weeks for the 4G treatment and
PR word knowledge decreased for the GB treatment.
Research Question 3 assessed which of the F4 gloss interventions were
most effective for receptive and productive word knowledge development. The
main effects for treatment condition, type of word measure, and time of assess-
ment and the significant triple interaction were followed up with a 3 (treatment)
× 3 (measure) repeated-measures ANOVA for immediate word gain scores.
Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated,
χ 2 (2) = 19.20, p < .05, for treatment; therefore, degrees of freedom were cor-
rected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .71). The ANOVA
showed a main effect for treatment, F(1.42, 52.36) = 57, p = .00, η2 = .61,
and word measure, F(2, 74) = 342.95, p = .00, η2 = .90. These findings were
qualified by a significant interaction, F(4, 148) = 39.53, p = .00, η2 = .52,
indicating that readers had gained different levels of receptive and productive
word knowledge in the three different reading conditions. Pairwise compar-
isons (LSD) with associated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared cell means of
AR, PR, and R scores among the three treatments of the immediate posttest.
Results showed that when readers encountered the TWs in the GR and the 4G
treatment, they gained the same amount of words on all three levels of word
knowledge (AR, PR, R), outperforming the GB treatment (Table 8). All ef-
fect sizes of significant differences were medium and large on the Cohen’s d
index. These findings confirm Hypothesis 3, indicating a learning advantage
for reading texts enhanced with four glosses or a gloss and an additional re-
trieval task compared to encountering a word once glossed plus three times
Delayed posttest scores, measured 4–6 weeks after the treatment (Research
bolded.
Question 4), showed a slightly different pattern. A 3 (treatment) × 3 (measure)
repeated-measures ANOVA for delayed word gain scores showed main effects
for treatment, F(2, 74) = 59.12, p = .00, η2 = .62, and word measure, F(2,
74) = 534.52, p = .00, η2 = .94. These findings were qualified by a signifi-
cant interaction, F(4, 148) = 23.02, p = .00, η2 = .38, indicating that readers
had gained different levels of receptive and productive word knowledge reten-
tion in the three different reading conditions. Pairwise comparisons (LSD) with

Table 8 Mean differences with effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of post hoc pairwise compar-
isons, using least significant difference (LSD), of the effect of treatment conditions on
active recall (AR), passive recall (PR), passive recognition (R)
Time of Vocabulary Test
Immediate Delayed
Comparison Mean difference Cohen’s d Mean difference Cohen’s d
Active recall
GR vs. 4G 0.02 −0.02 0.26 0.42
GR vs. GB 2.29∗ 3.14 1.71∗ 3.05
4G vs. GB 2.32∗ 2.55 1.45∗ 2.85
Passive recall
GR vs. 4G 0.18 0.32 0.40 0.53
GR vs. GB 1.13∗ 1.50 1.61∗ 1.83
4G vs. GB .95∗ 1.33 1.21∗ 1.43
Passive recognition
GR vs. 4G 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.43
GR vs. GB 0.55∗ 0.91 0.26 0.49
4G vs. GB 0.47∗ 0.73 0.03 0.06
Note. N = 38 in each cell; ∗ p < .01, Bonferroni adjustment; d = Cohen’s d. Treatment
condition: gloss-retrieval (GR), four-gloss (4G), gloss-bolding (GB).
associated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) compared cell means of AR, PR, and R
scores among the three treatments of the immediate posttest. Table 8 shows
that, as on the immediate posttest, reading texts with the GR and the 4G tasks
resulted in significantly more word knowledge retention on the AR and the PR
measures than reading a text with the GB treatment. However, retention scores
on the R measure indicate that all three treatments had a similar effect for the
development of R word knowledge. All effect sizes of significant differences
were large on the Cohen’s d index. These results only partially confirmed Hy-
pothesis 4. Even though results corroborated the hypothesized inferior word
gain through the GB task, the GR task did not result in more word knowledge
after 4–6 weeks than the 4G intervention task. Nevertheless, findings indicate
a distinct word learning advantage for 4G and GR treatments.
Research Question 5 compared lexical development after processing TWs
once or four times in the input passage. Table 4 displays the means and standard
deviations for F1 (one gloss) and F4 (GR, 4G, GB) word gain scores. The main
effect for frequency and the significant interaction among treatment, measure,

frequency, and time (Table 5) were followed up with two 3 (treatment) × 2 (fre-
quency) repeated-measures ANOVAs: one for immediate and one for delayed
word gain scores. The ANOVA on the immediate word measure showed main
effects for treatment, F(6, 32) = 26.49, p = .00, η2 = .83, and frequency, F(3,
35) = 174.26, p = .00, η2 = .94, and a significant interaction, F(6, 32) = 25.67,
p = .00, η2 = .83. Likewise, the ANOVA on the delayed word measure resulted
in main effects for treatment, F(6, 32) = 38.37, p = .00, η2 = .88, and frequency,
F(3, 35) = 25.27, p = .00, η2 = .68, and a significant interaction, F(6, 32) =
23.40, p = .00, η2 = .81. Pairwise comparisons (LSD) with associated effect
sizes (Cohen’s d) of F1 and F4 scores in each treatment condition revealed that
when L2 readers encountered the TWs four times in the GR or the 4G condi-
tion, they gained significantly more receptive and productive word knowledge
than when they encountered a TW only glossed once in the text (Table 9). This
was the case on the immediate posttest as well as on the delayed posttest. One
exception was the R measure in the 4G condition, which resulted in the same
word knowledge score on the delayed posttest. Yet, results further revealed that
Table 9 Mean differences with effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) of post hoc pairwise compar-
isons, using least significant difference (LSD), of word gain and retention scores of F1
and F4 TW occurrences
Assessment task
Treatment AR PR R
Immediate
Gloss-retrieval 2.58∗ 1.66∗ 0.47∗
d 4.31 2.43 0.79
Four-gloss 2.58∗ 1.47∗ 0.61∗
d 2.97 1.91 1.01
Gloss-bolding 0.32 0.50 0.11
d 0.52 0.55 0.20
Delayed
Gloss-retrieval 1.42∗ 0.91∗ 0.45∗
d 1.98 1.06 0.73
Four-gloss 1.18∗ 0.61∗ 0.02
d 1.74 0.72 0.05
Gloss-bolding −0.11 −0.66∗ 0.11
d 0.23 0.72 0.19
Note. N = 38 in each cell; ∗ p < .01, Bonferroni adjustment; d = Cohen’s d. Assessment
tasks: active recall (AR), passive recall (PR), passive recognition (R).

when readers encountered a TW once glossed plus three additional times bolded
(F4), they did not develop more word knowledge than when they encountered
a TW glossed only once (F1). This was the case on the immediate posttest and
4–6 weeks later. In fact, encountering a word glossed once (F1) resulted in a
significantly higher word gain score on the PR measure on the delayed posttest
than encountering the word glossed and bolded three times. All effect sizes
of significant differences were large on the Cohen’s d index. These findings
only partially supported Hypothesis 5. Apparently, bolding TWs did not signif-
icantly affect word learning compared to more obtrusive interventions, such as
additional glossing or word retrieval. When readers’ attention was obtrusively
directed twice (GR) or four times (4G) to the TWs, they gained significantly
more word knowledge than when their attention was less obtrusively (bolded)
directed to the TW or occurred glossed only once.
Research Question 6 assessed the effect of the individual gloss treatment
conditions on text comprehension. Table 10 reports means and standard devi-
ations of L1 retell scores for the three different treatment conditions. For the
statistical analysis a 2 (type of idea unit) × 3 (type of treatment condition)
MANOVA was conducted. The analysis revealed a significant effect for main
ideas, F(2, 111) = 5.39, p = .01, η2 = .88, but no significant effect for sup-
porting ideas, F(2, 111) = 1.51, p = .22, η2 = .03; that is, in all three reading
conditions, participants comprehended supporting ideas equally well. The sig-
nificant effect for main ideas was followed up with pairwise comparisons of
LSD among the three treatment conditions (Table 11). Overall, after reading
texts enhanced with four glosses (4G) participants comprehended more main
ideas than when they read texts enhanced with a gloss and a retrieval task (GR)
or a gloss and subsequent bolding of the words (GB). However, comprehension
of main ideas was only significantly higher in the 4G than in the GR condition
(Table 10). Effect sizes of significant differences were large on the Cohen’s d
index. These findings partially confirmed Hypothesis 6. As predicted, a distinct
positive effect for text comprehension was found when readers read texts en-
Table 10 Means and standard deviations of main and supporting ideas of L1 retell scores
Gloss-Retrieval Four-Gloss Gloss-Bolding
Main Support Main Support Main Support
12.42 11.87 16.55 11.21 14.34 11.36

(4.98) (1.93) (5.68) (1.49) (5.78) (1.72)
Note. N = 38. Maximum score of main ideas is 63 and 46 for supporting ideas.

Table 11 Mean differences with effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of post hoc pairwise compar-
isons, using least significant difference (LSD), of the effect of treatment conditions on
the retelling of main and supporting ideas
Type of Idea Unit
Main Supporting
Comparison Mean difference Cohen’s d Mean difference Cohen’s d
GR vs. 4G −4.13∗ −0.77 0.66 0.10

GR vs. GB −1.92 −0.36 0.50 0.29
4G vs. GB 2.21 0.38 −0.16 −0.31
Note. N = 38 in each cell; ∗ p < .01, Bonferroni adjustment; d = Cohen’s d. Treatment
condition: gloss-retrieval (GR), four-gloss (4G), gloss-bolding (GB).
hanced with four glosses than when they read a text enhanced with a retrieval
task. Contrary to the initial assumption, readers comprehended the main ideas
of a text equally well when words were first glossed and subsequently bolded
three times.
Discussion and Conclusion

The current investigation expanded previous lexical research by assessing the
combined facilitative effect of word interventions and frequency on vocabulary
learning and retention. This study was based on the assumption that the quality
of attentional resources and the frequency of occurrences of new lexical forms in
a text influence the learning of word meanings during reading. Three treatment
conditions were set up to vary the stimulation of attentional resources spent
on individual target words: four glosses, one gloss plus a meaning retrieval
task and two visual enhancements of the target words, and one gloss plus three
additional visual enhancements of the target words. Frequency was accounted
for by exposing readers to a TW either once or four times.
One major goal of this study was to compare the effect of obtrusively direct-
ing L2 readers’ attention to word meaning once (both GB and F1conditions),
twice (GR), or four (4G) times. Previous investigations that assessed the effect
of frequency of unenhanced words have shown that the repeated occurrence of a
new word in a text is a strong predictor for word learning. These studies showed
clear differences in meaning gain between one and three encounters (Hulstijn
et al., 1996) or two and six encounters (Rott, 1999). Regarding establishing an
initial FMC, no frequency effects were found in the current investigation where
repetitions included semantic information about word meanings (glosses) or
prompted the reader to retrieve the target word meaning. One glossed encounter

seemed to be as useful as four encounters in establishing a FMC and leaving a

memory trace that readers were able to access 4–6 weeks after the encounter.
This memory trace was assessed with a receptive multiple-choice measure, the
assessment task that required the least word knowledge. Therefore, it can be
said that frequency of obtrusive encounters seems to be less important to estab-
lish an initial FMC when the word meaning is provided through glosses than
when a reader encounters the word in an unenhanced reading situation and has
to infer its meaning.
Yet, frequency of more obtrusive word interventions, which stimulated the
processing of the meaning of the word, had a significant effect on the quality of
word encoding (i.e., the level of receptive and productive word knowledge gain).
After processing the target word glossed and encountering it three additional
times visually enhanced (GB), readers were able to retrieve the word receptively
but in only few instances productively. Readers benefited significantly from
multiple choices when they were prompted to access the target word knowledge
in their mental lexicons. Likewise, when readers processed the word meaning
four times through a gloss or when they received a gloss and subsequently were
prompted to provide the L1 translation of the word, they equally benefited from
multiple meaning choices to demonstrate word knowledge, in particular 4–6
weeks after the treatment. Nevertheless, unlike in the one gloss plus bolding
condition, these two intervention tasks resulted in word encoding that allowed
readers to retrieve a significant number of words productively. This means
that repeatedly directing L2 readers’ attention to semantic word enhancements
within the same text has clear advantages for the development of productive
word knowledge.
Consequently, these findings imply that the visual enhancement of bolding
activates qualitatively different attentional resources than semantic enhance-
ments (the provision of glosses or the prompt to retrieve the word meaning),
which resulted in higher levels of word knowledge encoding. Current results
suggest that repeated visual enhancements (bolding), after establishing an initial
FMC, did not strengthen word encoding in the mental lexicon. In fact, readers
did not retain more word knowledge of words that were glossed and visually
enhanced in three additional contexts than words they encountered only once
glossed. A clear explanation for the noneffect of bolding cannot be drawn from
the current study. Although assuming that retention of words requires the isola-
tion of the lexical form from its context and some type of elaboration of meaning
or rehearsal in working memory (e.g., Ellis, 1994; Gass, 1997; Hulstijn, 2001),
it might be that when readers encountered the bolded target words, they merely

focused on comprehending the text without temporarily shifting their attention

to the lexical form and its unique meaning. Bolding individual words in a text
without indicating the purpose might cause readers to attend to the word aspect
they consider most important (e.g., spelling) or to not attend to any particular
aspect at all (see Izumi, 2002, for a review on input enhancement of grammatical
forms).
Moreover, in contrast to the initial assumption, the data revealed that a gloss
followed by a retrieval prompt did not lead to more productive word knowledge
than processing a word glossed four times. In fact, readers established and re-
tained the same level of word knowledge in both of these treatment conditions.
Accessing and retrieving the stored target word meaning apparently did not lead
to qualitatively different word encoding than shifting attentional resources to
the glossed word meaning in the margin of the text. This finding was surprising
because it was assumed that word retrieval would lead to a deeper level of word
processing and the reinforcement of the L1-L2 word association. Yet, current
findings suggest that the quantity of attentional resources allocated during the
repeated processing of glosses might compensate for the quality of attentional
resources spent during one word retrieval. Whereas the retrieval task resulted in
word processing that led to more productive word gain than one gloss alone, the
repeated focus on glosses resulted in word processing that led to equally produc-
tive word gain. It can be assumed that shifting attentional resources repeatedly
to the target word in the margin provided repeated opportunities to rehearse
word meaning in WM. Nevertheless, this study does not provide conclusive ev-
idence for the effect of frequency because it cannot be deduced from the current
data collection how word encoding in these two conditions developed across
four word encounters: Whether it occurred gradually or during one particular
word encounter. However, what becomes clear is that the combined effect of
frequency and attention to semantic meaning increased the rate of productive
word gain.
These findings can be further explained through the Involvement Load Hy-
pothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). According to the Involvement Load Hypoth-
esis, a gloss prompts readers to perceive the need for the target word meaning,
earning a processing load of one. The retrieval task receives a processing load
of three because in addition to stimulating the need for the target word, the
reader has to search for the meaning in the mental lexicon and evaluate the
correct meaning retrieval by writing it down. This higher level of processing
load is said to result in better learning. Nonetheless, the repeated processing of
glosses in the current study resulted in a processing load of four (a load of 1 ×

4 occurrences), the GR condition also had a processing load of four (one for the
gloss plus three for the word retrieval task), whereas the one-gloss condition
earned a processing load of one. Thereby, the current investigation further sup-
ports the Involvement Load Hypothesis and suggests that the factor frequency
of word intervention might mediate and interact with the three dimensions of
word learning; need, search, and evaluation.
Current results provided further insights into the effect of glosses on word
meaning retention. As in studies by Ko (1995) and Watanabe (1997), the present
findings confirmed that the processing of glosses has a long-term effect on word
learning. The current study expanded previous investigations, which mainly
used L1 to L2 translation tasks to assess word learning, by using more graded
assessment tasks to measure long-term word gain (one productive and two re-
ceptive tasks). Thereby, this study revealed a variation in retention patterns for
target words that were encountered four times as compared to target words
encountered only once. Word encoding after one glossed encounter remained
relatively robust across 4–6 weeks on all three levels of word measures. A differ-
ent pattern was observed for receptive and productive word knowledge retention
after four glossed target word encounters. Receptive word knowledge, measured
with the multiple-choice recognition task, was retained for all words over 4–6
weeks when readers encountered the target words four times. Yet, the ability to
recall the word meaning receptively on a L2 to L1 translation task and to retrieve
word meaning productively (L1 to L2) was not robust over time; that is, word
interventions that led to the highest level of immediate word knowledge gain
also decreased the most over 4–6 weeks. Readers were still able to retrieve more
words for productive use after four glossed or glossed and retrieved encounters
in the text than after one glossed encounter. Therefore, it can be said that the
increased frequency of obtrusive semantic word interventions resulted in the
increase of word retention.
A second goal of the current investigation was to assess whether repeated
word interventions that directed the readers’ attention to individual words fa-
cilitated or hindered the comprehension of the text. Taking L2 learners’ lim-
ited ability to attend to multiple information sources at the same time as a
starting point, this study assessed interventions that varied in frequency and
the level of obtrusiveness with which the readers’ attention was directed to
the TWs. As reported earlier, even though the instructions of the reading
tasks directed the participants’ attention to comprehending the input passage,
in all conditions the readers engaged in word processing that led to word
learning.

Previous studies found that exposing L2 readers to glosses led to superior

text comprehension as compared to an unenhanced reading condition (Davis,
1989; Jacob, 1994) or the use of appositives (Watanabe, 1997). The present
investigation extended this line of investigation by further comparing text com-
prehension when words were glossed once and bolded thereafter, glossed once
and subsequently retrieved, or glossed four times. Results revealed that when
texts were enhanced with four glosses for each target word, readers compre-
hended main ideas better than when texts were enhanced with one gloss, a word
retrieval prompt, plus two visual enhancements. In addition, there was a trend
(yet no statistically significant difference) indicating that readers comprehended
main ideas better when they read texts with four glosses than with only one gloss
and additional visual enhancements. Findings suggest that the repeated provi-
sion of meaning for the same word triggered not only the comprehension of
the target word but also the entire proposition, a finding also reported in Rott
and Williams (2003). Therefore, it can be said that the obtrusive intervention of
glosses directly influenced text comprehension by making propositional con-
tent easier to access while raising the readers’ awareness of the importance of
the propositional content.
Visual enhancements of individual words did apparently also stimulate the
readers’ motivation to comprehend the propositional content. These results con-
trast with observations made by Moravcsik and Healy (1998). They showed that
L1 readers comprehended text less well when words were highlighted compared
to when the entire text or no words were enhanced. One explanation might be
that, in the current study, the initial gloss stimulated the readers’ motivation to
comprehend additional textual propositions containing the same word bolded.
Future research needs to directly compare the effect of a gloss plus bolding and
bolding alone on text comprehension. In turn, the data revealed a trend indi-
cating that even though the production task (GR) might foster word learning, it
might interfere with text comprehension. Overall, participants comprehended
the least main ideas when the reading process was interrupted to recall and
note down the meaning of individual words. However, the current data do not
reveal whether the retrieval task drew on attentional resources necessary for
text comprehension or whether the retrieval task prompted learners to perceive
the task more of a word learning task than a reading task.
Additionally, in all three intervention conditions, readers comprehended
supporting ideas equally well. The explanation might be that all three conditions
were alike in that supporting ideas were not enhanced. Consequently, these
findings lend support to the assumption that the provision of glosses serves

two purposes. They foster word learning mechanisms and trigger L2 readers to
focus their attention to the textual propositions enhanced with glosses without
depleting cognitive resources for either process.
Limitations and Future Research

Although the current investigation further expanded our understanding of the
importance of glosses for text comprehension, it failed to clearly demonstrate
how the number of glosses in a text is related to the number of ideas recalled
from a text. Neither did this study show the clear relationship between glosses
and individual readers’ situation model of that text. Future research should
manipulate the frequency of glosses in a text as well as the distribution of
glosses across main and supporting ideas. Likewise, it would be of interest to
assess whether there is an ideal ratio of glossed and nonglossed words in a
text that stimulates word learning as well as text comprehension. Moreover, the
current investigation was not designed to determine why the word retrieval task
did not lead to the anticipated superior word retention. It would be interesting
to see whether four retrieval prompts would enhance word learning or text
comprehension, or whether this would lead to readers’ boredom. In addition, this
study tapped learners’ partial word knowledge gain and only assessed selected
word aspects. Future research should further expand studies on word knowledge
gain by assessing a broader spectrum of word aspects, such as syntactic and
pragmatic aspects in more contextualized production tasks. Finally, this study set
out to investigate incidental vocabulary acquisition directing the participants’
attention to comprehend the content of each reading treatment. Nevertheless,
participants might have directed more attention to the TWs when they read the
second or the third treatment passage because they knew from the first treatment
that a vocabulary measure would follow. Therefore, the study cannot make an
unqualified claim about incidental learning because some of the words might
have been learned intentionally.
Revised version accepted 24 August 2006
Notes
1
Based on the textbook used for the first three semesters of the language program,
fourth-semester language learners should know already between 1,500-2000 words
for day-to-day topics. Therefore, it is not easy to identify target words central to the
meaning of the passage that can be repeated four times. The researcher wanted to
refrain from making students learn nonsense words.

2
Retention of all TWs from the different treatment conditions was measured on the
same day for the following reasons: a) to reduce the possibility of missing students;
b) so that students would not be forewarned during the first retention test that two
more tests would be following; c) to avoid repeated interruption of class time. It was
also assumed that word retention was fairly stable after three weeks (Schmitt, 2001).
3
Changes were made to the original CATSS (Laufer et al., 2004) because the current
test was administered with paper and pencil and not on the computer. In addition
fewer TWs were tested in the current study. Therefore, the first letter of the word
was not provided and distracters were added. Finally, the active recognition level
was omitted because it requires learners to choose the correct TW meaning from
multiple L2 choices. Because the current student population has a very limited
lexicon, it would have been too difficult to find appropriate distracters.
References
Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition.
Language Learning, 52, 323–363.
Davis, J. (1989). Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading.
Modern Language Journal, 73, 41–48.
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.),
Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1–31). London: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (2004). The processes of second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J.
Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second
language acquisition (pp. 49–76). New York: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., Svetics, L., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention.
Language Learning, 53, 497–545.
Holschuh, A. (1989). Leutebuch. Ein leichtes Lesebuch. New York: Hartcourt Brace.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond A Clockwork Orange: Acquiring
second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11,
207–223.
Hulstijn, J. (1993). When do foreign language readers look up the meaning of
unfamiliar words? The influence of task and learner variables. Modern Language
Journal, 77, 139–147.
Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intention and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A
reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–286). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hulstijn, J., 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. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. An
experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
24, 541–577.
Jacobs, G. (1994). What lurks in the margin: Use of vocabulary glosses as a strategy in
second language reading. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5, 115–137.
Jacobs, G., Dufon, P., & Hong, C. F. (1994). L1 and L2 glosses in L2 reading passages:
Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge.
Journal of Research in Reading, 17, 19–28.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects of reading comprehension of building background
knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503–516.
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second
language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.
Judd, E. L. (1978). Vocabulary teaching and TESOL: A need for re-evaluation of
existing assumptions. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503–516.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ko, M. (1995). Glossing in incidental and intentional learning of foreign language
vocabulary and reading. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 13, 49–94.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from research. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Laufer, B. (2001). Reading, word-focused activities and incidental vocabulary
acquisition in a second language. Prospect, 16, 44–54.
Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need
both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21, 202–227.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second
language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
Leblans, A., Mifflin, D., Mullens, D. M., Paskow, J., Poser, Y., & Strauch, G. (2000).
Was ist deutsch? Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Moravcsik, J. E., & Healy, A. F. (1998). Highlighting important words leads to poorer
comprehension. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning:
Psycholinguistic studies in training and retention (pp. 259–272). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Pak, J. (1986). The effect of vocabulary glossing on ESL reading comprehension.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Hawai’i.
Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195–224.

Parry, K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject. In
T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary
acquisition (pp. 109–129). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two portraits. In T. Huckin & J.
Coady (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 55–68). Cambridge:
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus
translation as a function of proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 80, 478–
493.
Rott, S. (1997). The effect of exposure frequency and reading comprehension on
incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading for learners of
German as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’
incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 589–619.
Rott, S., & Williams, J. (2003). Making form-meaning connections while reading: A
qualitative analysis of the effect of input and output tasks on word learning. Reading
in a Foreign Language 15, 45–74.
Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses
and input-output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching
Research, 6, 183–222.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77–89.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of processing
input. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new
vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15,
130–163.
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on
incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 287–307.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second language
vocabulary learning: An introspective study. Modern Language Journal, 84,
196–213.
Zahar, R. Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading:
Effects of frequency and contextual richness. Canadian Modern Language Review,
57, 541–572.

Appendix
Example Passage
Target words are bolded.
Ein unkonventionelles Leben
“Ganz normal ist das nicht, was ich da mache”, meint Jürgen von sich
selbst. Im Winter wie im Sommer wandert er mit seinem Köter Asda durch
Deutschland. Er ist Obdachloser. Er hat keine Arbeit und verdient keine Knete.
Er ist einer von hunderttausenden, die auf der Strasse leben. Alles, was er
braucht, trägt er selbst: zwei Schlafsäcke, ein Stück Plastik, einen Teller, ein
Messer, eine Gabel und einen Löffel.
Jürgen wäscht sich nicht oft. Seine Klamotten hat er immer an, tagsüber
und nachts. Wenn sie zu sehr stinken, wirft er sie weg. Eine andere Hose, ein
T-Shirt, und eine Jacke kann man immer bekommen.
Jürgen schläft oft unter einer Bückeroder auf der Strasse. Sein Köter Asda
schläft immer an seiner Seite und weckt ihn jeden Morgen. Dann packt Jürgen
seine Sachen zusammen und wandert in die nächste Stadt; heute nach Esslingen.
Zuerst geht er in ein Stehcafe. Die Verkäuferin dort macht schnell die Tür
weit auf, trotz der Kälte draussen. Wie gesagt: er stinkt, da er immer dieselben
Klamotten trägt. Danach geht Jürgen zum Büro für Obdachlose. Höflich bittet
er den Sozialarbeiter um ein Hemd und Schuhe. Das Hemd bekommt er, Schuhe
nicht, dazu aber 12 DM. Das ist mehr als in anderen Städten, wo man keine
Knete bekommt.
Jürgen sucht sich einen Platz in der Einkaufspassage. Heute ist Samstag
und viele Leute sind beim Einkaufen. Die Leute, in ihren schicken Klamotten,
gehen an Jürgen vorbei. Er hält einen Karton vor sich hin, auf dem steht:
“Wir haben Hunger und bitten um eine Spende.” Nicht immer ist es Knete,
was Jürgen bekommt. Auf dem Karton steht ja etwas von Hunger, und daher
geben die Menschen ihm etwas zu Essen. Nach der sechsten Bratwurst muss er
aufhören. Auch der Köter, der neben ihm auf seinem Mantel liegt, will nichts
mehr fressen. Wenn die Leute ihm nichts geben, geht Jürgen in eine Küche
für Obdachlose. Manchmal kennt er ein paar Leute, die, wie er, auch auf der
Strasse leben.
In der nächsten Stadt, Stuttgart, arbeitet Jürgen ein paar Stunden und ver-
dient ein bisschen Knete. Er bekommt eine Säge und arbeitet mit einer Gruppe
von Männern im Wald. Nach zwei Stunden hat er 10 DM. Dafür kann er sich im
Second-Hand Laden ein paar warme Klamotten für den Winter kaufen. Für
Obdachlose ist der Winter immer problematisch. Es ist schwer einen Platz zum

Schlafen zu finden. Besonders, weil viele Leute keine Köter in ihre Wohnung
lassen wollen. Die Leute mögen den Gestank nicht und haben Angst, wenn
Asda bellt.
Immediate Posttest
Page 1
Instructions: Please provide the German meaning of the words. Even if you
have only a vague idea about a word, please write it down. Scratch out those
words you cannot make sense of at all.
1. sleeping bag 13. travel companion

2. office 14. smell
3. saw 15. money
4. dog 16. street
5. plate 17. store
6. hat 18. bridge
7. cold 19. poverty
8. donation 20. clothes
9. payment 21. hunger
10. homeless person 22. shirt
11. shopping 23. peddler
12. spoon 24. sausage
Page 2
Instructions: Please provide the English meaning of the words. Even if you have
only a vague idea about a word, please write it down. Scratch out those words
you cannot make sense of at all.
a) Klamotten m) Hunger
b) Büro n) Hemd
c) Hut o) Teller
d) Kälte p) Schlafsack
e) Knete q) Säge
f) Spende r) Löffel
g) Zahlung s) Wurst
h) Einkauf t) Köter
i) Obdachloser u) Gestank
j) Laden v) Knete
k) Brücke w) Strasse
l) Armut x) Reisepartner

Page 3 (This page includes the target words only. The actual test contained 14
additional distracter items.)
Please circle the correct meaning from the following words:
Köter Laden
a) travel companion a) store

b) friend b) office
c) dog c) organization
d) don’t know d) don’t know
Gestank Spende
a) peddler a) agency
b) smell b) donation
c) lodging c) payment
Obdachloser Knete
a) homeless person a) security
b) travel agent b) money
c) peasant c) poverty
Klamotten Säge
a) boots a) saw
b) hats b) forest
c) clothes c) ax
Main Propositions of the Input Passage

Ein unkonventionelles Leben (28 Propositions)
1. Jürgen ist Obdachloser.
2. Er hat einen Köter.
3. Er wandert durch Deutschland.
4. Er hat keine Arbeit.
5. Er hat kein Geld.
6. Er trägt seinen ganzen Bestiz bei sich.
7. Er wäscht sich nicht.
8. Er wirft seine Klamotten weg.
9. Jürgen schläft unter der Brücke.
10. Er geht nach Esslingen.
11. Er geht in ein Cafe.
12. Er stinkt.

13. Im Cafe machen sie die Tür auf.

14. Er geht zum Büro für Obdachlose.
15. Er bittet um Kleidung.
16. Er bekommt 12 DM.
17. In anderen Städten bekommt man keine Knete.
18. Jürgen ist in einer Passage.
19. Viele Leute sind beim Einkaufen.
20. Er bettelt.
21. Er bekommt nicht nur Knete sondern auch Essen.
22. Er kann nicht so viel Wurst essen.
23. Köter kann nicht so viel Wurst fressen.
24. Er schläft in einem Heim für Obdachlose.
25. Er arbeitet mit einer Säge im Wald.
26. Er verdient 10 DM.
27. Er kauft Winterklamotten.
28. Er hat Probleme mit Schlafplatz, weil Leute keine Köter mögen.

Language Learning

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Language Learning

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

The Effect of Frequency of Input-

Keywords classroom research; lexical acquisition; text comprehension; input enhance-

Textual input is generally assumed to be an important source for second lan-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susanne Rott, Department of

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 165

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 166

limited-capacity processing system (e.g., Barcroft, 2002; Ellis, 2001; VanPat-

167 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Word Intervention Through Glosses

Word Enhancement Through Repeated Occurrences and Focused

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 168

Text Comprehension and Word Interventions

169 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

that placing words in boldface led to a worse performance on comprehension

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 170

lead to activating only a partial set of learning mechanisms (e.g., rehearsal,

171 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Number of Words Gained (Between-Treatment)

These four hypotheses were based on the following considerations:

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 172

173 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 174

Text F1 Words F4 Words

Sarahs Stein Krach Noise Geplapper Chatting

175 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 176

Scoring and Analysis

Table 2 Number of main and supporting ideas of the input passages

Input passage Main ideas Supporting ideas

177 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Table 3 Setup of treatments

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Vocabulary pretest–2 weeks prior to treatment

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 178

× 2 (frequency). The independent variables were the gloss treatment condition

Gloss-retrieval Four-gloss Gloss-bolding

179 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

qualified by significant two-way, three-way and four-way interactions (Table 5).

Table 5 Multivariate test (MANOVA) of 3 (Gloss treatment condition) × 3 (Word gain

Hypothesis Error Eta

Treatment condition (TC) 70.33 2 36 .00 .80

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 180

Gloss-retrieval Four-gloss Gloss-bolding

Immediate vocabulary test

181 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 182

183 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Time of Vocabulary Test

Comparison Mean difference Cohen’s d Mean difference Cohen’s d

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 184

185 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

Gloss-Retrieval Four-Gloss Gloss-Bolding

Main Support Main Support Main Support

12.42 11.87 16.55 11.21 14.34 11.36

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 186

Type of Idea Unit

Comparison Mean difference Cohen’s d Mean difference Cohen’s d

GR vs. 4G −4.13∗ −0.77 0.66 0.10

Discussion and Conclusion

187 Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199

seemed to be as useful as four encounters in establishing a FMC and leaving a

Language Learning 57:2, June 2007, pp. 165–199 188