A task that I had to complete as a requirement of the course TSL 641- Computer Assisted Language Learning is a review of any article that deals with CALL. I had to submit a hard copy of my review along with the article, and also a soft copy of the review and the article on a CD. I also have to put my review up on my CALL blog. So below is the online version of my review.
Introduction
The title of the article to be reviewed is The Effects of CALL Versus Traditional L1 Glosses on L2 Reading Comprehension. It is taken from The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) Journal. It was published in January 2006, and is the second issue in Volume 23. The article starts on page 309 until page 318. The author is Alan Taylor, a professor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at Brigham Young University, Idaho. The use of native-language glosses by learners is found to be an effective tool for understanding a second-language text. This study compares the effect of traditional L1 glosses and CALL L1 glosses on learners’ reading comprehension and see which is the more effective tool.
Summary of the article
The paper chosen is a meta-analytic research. The aim of the research is to look at the use of L1 glosses and their effectiveness with or without a computer. It also intends to investigate the factors explaining how and when computer-assisted L1 glosses can be effective in L2 reading comprehension. Relevant studies for the meta-analysis were searched for using a variety of electronic sources such as the World Wide Web (WWW), The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI), Languages and Literatures Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), and Psychology Information (Psych INFO). Quantitative meta-analysis is used to provide a more comprehensive explanation of what the studies suggest. A statistic called the “effect size” is categorized as follows: large (g = .80 or above), medium (g = .50-.79), small (g = .20-.49), and no practical importance (g = less than .20). The effect size, g, is calculated using the formula where is the mean of the experimental group, is the mean of the control group, and Sp is the pooled standard deviation of the control and experimental groups. As it is a meta-analytic research, the samples used are research papers relevant to this topic. Studies that are to be included in the meta-analysis have to meet the following criteria: a) all studies up to the year 2002 are included, b) the study is either experimental or quasi-experimental, c) at least one of the dependent variables of the study had to be reading comprehension, and d) the effect of access to glosses versus no access to glosses had to be tested. If a study is lacking even one of the criteria, it is discarded and cannot be used for the meta-analysis. 18 studies were found that met all four aforementioned criteria. The study found that L1 glosses affect L2 reading comprehension with an overall effect size of .56 (medium). This means that L2 readers equipped with L1 glosses perform consistently better than those without L1 glosses. From this result, CALL L1 outcomes deliver a large effect size of 1.09 while the traditional L1 glossing group renders a small effect of .39. The difference between the two groups is quite significant, amounting to .0001. This proves that CALL L1 glosses are more effective than traditional L1 glosses where L2 reading comprehension is concerned.
Reflection
The research interests me because it deals with the use of L1 in language class. During my teaching practicum I was advised to use as much of the target language (English) as necessary and avoid using L1. Many language experts are also of the opinion that the use of the target language should be maximized in order for learners to learn the language effectively. So I was interested to know whether the use of L1 is facilitative and effective in leaning English as L2. It is also interesting to find out whether the use of one tool (in this case, glosses) would have different effect if presented differently. In this particular study, the L1 glosses compared are paper-based and computer-based. In my opinion, this research is well-conducted. The researcher has taken good measures to ensure that the studies to be analyzed are relevant to what is being studied. Before the analysis, all the studies that were gathered had to meet all the criteria before they can be included in the meta-analysis. Moreover, the use of meta-analysis provides a helpful insight into the overall effectiveness of the use of L1 glosses. It also shows the relative impact of independent variables, in this case, the effect of different types of L1 glosses. It would be helpful if the researcher had included some terms of definitions in his study. There are readers who may be unfamiliar with glosses and the difference between traditional glosses from the CALL ones. The concept of meta-analysis should be introduced because it is the very nature of the research. The results of this study have implications for teaching and learning of ESL. L1 glosses are found to be helpful for learners in reading comprehension, so teachers should try to utilize glosses in reading materials. Next, CALL L1 glosses are found to be significantly more effective than traditional ones. Thus, schools may want to invest in CALL L1 glosses to be used in the language laboratories. If CALL L1 glosses are used in schools, its effectiveness may translate into better performance in examination. In Malaysia, the amount of marks allocated for reading comprehension is quite big. Thus, learners’ improvement in their reading comprehension will be significant and positively affect their overall achievement in English language. Lastly, a more extensive use of glosses may result in further improvement for learners in terms of their language ability and independence in language learning.
This is the link to the original article: https://calico.org/html/article_119.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment