To find out which type of gloss has an effect on incidental vocabulary learning, the author compared the results obtained by the participants exposed to different gloss used in the study. According to the table one above, we find that gloss with Chinese and phnology and English with phnology facilitate acquisition better and to some extent, their effects make no difference.

4.1.2 the results of immediate meaning recognition

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

L1 15 30 70 51.33 11.255

L2 15 40 70 53.33 9.759

L1P 15 50 70 61.33 7.432

L2P 15 40 70 56.00 8.281

Valid N (listwise) 15

                      Table 2

The same manipulation was applied to check the different types of gloss on students’ immediate meaning recognition. According to table two, the mean score ranges to 51.33 to 61.33. And we take a closer look at table, we can see gloss with phnology better than only gloss with language, but gloss with with L1 are more effective to facilitate vocabulary than L2.

4.1.3 the results of delayed vocabulary test

Based on the positive effects of certain kind of gloss on immediate meaning and form recognition, the author wondered whether such effects are persistent in the long term memory. Therefore, a delayed vocabulary test was made. 

 Table 3

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

L1 15 30 60 45.33 8.338

L2 15 30 60 42.00 7.746

L1P 15 50 60 55.33 5.164

L2P 15 50 60 54.00 5.071

Valid N (listwise) 15

According to Table three above, the average form-recognition test scores of students were lower than the student scores on the immediate test (show in table one). And especially to L1 with phnology, it fosters acquisition more clearly. While gloss only with language explanation fails to make a big difference.

4.1. 4 the results of delayed meaning test

Table 4