Discussion and Limitations
Several limitations have been identified in this pilot study:
i) Due to the small size of the sample population, the results were not statistically significant. However, this study could be replicated with a larger sample population, and with an increased number of texts. It would be interesting to compare a similar approach across languages and grade levels as well.
ii) Improved test results may have been influenced by the extra organization and structure required during the multimedia experience compared to the non-glossed situation. The novelty of the instruction, increased interactivity and the fact that the student had control of the learning pace may also have been factors. (Park and Hannafin, 1993; Najjar, 1996)
iii) The findings indicate that visual cues are the preferred media
of these young learners, irrespective of learning style.
Videos are the most used followed by graphics. While the tactual and
NP learners who participated in this research effort seemed to understand
the relevance of the different glosses in helping them with the reading
process, visual and kinesthetic learners did not. Combining the recall
protocol with an online measure, such as a think-aloud procedure, would
have provided insight into why certain media choices were made.
iv) Definitions were the least used cues. This is in contrast to Lyman-Hager and Davis (1996) and others who found that college level students tended to depend chiefly on First Language (L1) definitions and had some degree of misunderstanding of the function of other glosses. Of course, this may be due to the older learner being less familiar with the use of computers in the classroom whereas younger children today have more familiarity with computers in their schools. Participants in this study were given the option of L2 definitions only and were deemed to have a high comfort level with the software tools. However, a more extensive explanation of the types of informational glosses available might have facilitated vocabulary recognition, particularly for visual and kinesthetic learners. Whether the inclusion of an L1 definition would have had similar results as that found with the older learner is a topic for future study.
v) Within the vocabulary test document itself, one vocabulary word was not understood by any of the participants. Several students requested an explanation of the word ějuridiqueî, an option for vocabulary test item #9. This leads to speculation that other students did not seek assistance with other unknown terms. In individual situations, this could have created frustration and negatively influenced the selection or non-selection of a test option. The item in question, however, was correctly answered by 5 students.