Electronic L1 and L2 glosses’ impact on vocabulary acquisition of Moroccan English as a foreign language learners

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Kurz

The study investigates how electronic first-language (L1) translations and second-language (L2) definition glosses affect incidental vocabulary learning and retention among Moroccan EFL learners. A total of 172 first-year university students were assigned to a no-gloss comparison group (NGG) and two gloss conditions: EL1GG and EL2GG. Over an eight-week treatment, learners read glossed or unglossed texts, answered comprehension questions, and completed vocabulary tests. Results show gloss groups significantly outperform NGG, while interviews indicate both gloss types support learning and comprehension, though L2 glosses can present challenges; individualized glossing strategies are recommended.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages19

Reading Time48 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Vocabulary and incidental learning

Glossing in EFL

Research questions

Literature Review

Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics ISSN 2209-0959 [https://www.castledown.com/journals/ajal/](https://www.castledown.com/journals/ajal/) Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (1), 2236 (2025) [https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v8n1.2236](https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v8n1.2236) Electronic L1 and L2 glosses’ impact on vocabulary acquisition of Moroccan English as a foreign language learners BRAHIM OUTAMGHARTEa MOHAMED YEOUb HICHAM ZYADc abc Applied Language and Culture Studies Lab, Chouaïb Doukkali University, Morocco Abstract With the growing interest in integrating information and communication technology in the EFL classroom, the present study investigated the impact of electronic first language (L1) translations and second language (L2) definition glosses on incidental vocabulary learning and retention among Moroccan EFL learners. In total, 172 first-year university students participated in this study. The participants were divided into three groups: a comparison group with no glosses (NGG) and two experimental groups, namely the L1 electronic gloss group (EL1GG) and the L2 electronic gloss group (EL2GG) . During the eight-week treatment, participants had to read texts without glosses or glossed with target vocabulary items, as well as complete reading comprehension questions and vocabulary tests. The results of one-way analysis of variance revealed that those with glosses significantly outperformed those without. Qualitative data from semistructured interviews revealed that participants perceived both L1 and L2 glosses as beneficial tools for vocabulary learning and comprehension, though L2 glosses posed challenges at times, which highlighted the need for individualized glossing strategies. Implications for researchers and EFL teachers are provided. Keywords: Electronic glosses; individual differences; incidental vocabulary; L1 and L2 Introduction It is widely acknowledged among language learners, practitioners, and researchers that vocabulary is the hub of language (Ramezanali et al., 2021) . Many researchers have shown a direct link between students’ vocabulary knowledge and their ability to read and write (Alharthi, 2018; Laufer & Aviad-Levitzky, 2017). Actually, not being able to use a vocabulary item appropriately may lead to partial or total breakdowns in communication, because vocabulary is the carrier of the message (Llach, 2011; Nation, 2013; Thornbury, 2006) . Some text coverage research has suggested that learners should know about 9000 words to understand 98% of most texts (Nation, 2013) . Given this large figure, it makes sense to claim that learning all these words through explicit instruction alone is impossible for most learners. To deal with this issue, the literature suggests learning vocabulary incidentally through reading (Choi, 2016; Mao & Zhang, 2017; Yanguas, 2009) . Students can learn vocabulary incidentally through reading or listening activities when the focus is not on vocabulary (Boers, 2022; Krashen, 1989; Nation, 2013) . It is considered a significant means of language acquisition for both first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) learners (Choi et al., 2014; Coady & Huckin, 1997; Hulstijn et al., 1996; Nagy et al., 1987; Schmitt, 2010) . Despite the innate process of unintentional acquisition of new words, L2 learners face many challenges when it comes to incidental vocabulary learning. These stem from inadequate L2 exposure, lower English reading competency, and the ineffectiveness and accessibility of contextual hints (Choi, 2016; Hu et al., 2014) . To narrow the shortcomings of learning vocabulary incidentally through reading, L2 research has identified glossing as a beneficial tool for incidental vocabulary learning (Choi, 2016; He, 2019; Kim et al., 2024; Nation, 2013; Ramezanali & Faez, 2019; Teng, 2020) . Glossing means providing translations or explanations of target vocabulary items that are believed tobe unfamiliar or challenging in a writte

FAQs

How does the study define electronic L1 and L2 glosses?

The research treats glossing as providing translations or explanations for target vocabulary items in written texts, such as interlinear or marginal notes, including pop-up translations in computer-based settings.

What learning activities were participants asked to complete during the eight-week treatment?

Participants read texts either without glosses or with L1/L2 glosses for target vocabulary items, completed reading comprehension questions, and took vocabulary tests.

What do the results and interviews indicate about using glosses?

One-way ANOVA shows learners with glosses significantly outperform those without. Interviews suggest both L1 and L2 glosses help vocabulary learning and comprehension, while L2 glosses may create occasional challenges, highlighting the need for individualized glossing strategies.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Kurz