Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T08:11:34.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eye gaze and L2 speakers’ responses to recasts: A systematic replication study of McDonough, Crowther, Kielstra and Trofimovich (2015)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

Kim McDonough ,
Pavel Trofimovich ,
Phung Dao  and
Dato Abashidze
Kim McDonough
Affiliation:
Concordia University, CanadaKim.McDonough@concordia.ca
Pavel Trofimovich
Affiliation:
Concordia University, CanadaPavel.Trofimovich@concordia.ca
Phung Dao
Affiliation:
Manchester Metropolitan University, UKp.dao@mmu.ac.uk
Dato Abashidze
Affiliation:
Concordia University, CanadaDato.Abashidze@concordia.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To confirm the role of social factors in mediating cognitive processes, this systematic replication study seeks to extend the generalizability of an exploratory study (McDonough, Crowther, Kielstra & Trofimovich 2015) that reported a positive association between eye gaze and second language (L2) speakers’ responses to recasts. For this replication, L2 English speakers (N = 74) carried out communicative tasks with research assistants who provided recasts in response to non-targetlike forms while both interlocutors’ eye gaze behavior was tracked. Transcripts were analyzed for the occurrence of recasts in response to different error types, recast length, and L2 speaker responses. Eye gaze length for the research assistants (RAs) when producing the recast move and the L2 speaker when responding to the recast were obtained in seconds, and mutual gaze (i.e., simultaneous looking) was included as a binary eye gaze variable. A logistic regression model confirmed the findings of McDonough et al. (2015), with both L2 speaker and mutual eye gaze predictive of targetlike responses; however, the effect of L2 speaker's eye gaze duration was in the opposite direction as compared to the initial study. The implications are discussed in terms of understanding the role of eye gaze in face to face interaction.

Type
Replication Research
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 81 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, L. Q. (2000). Nonverbal accommodation in foreign language teacher talk. Applied Language Learning 11.1, 155–176.Google Scholar
Batstone, R. (2010). Issues and options in sociocognition. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspective on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication 52.3, 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D. & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretation of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 209–236. https://doi.org/10+10170S0272263106060104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, H. & Iwashita, N. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (eds.), 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2016). Using eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language research. Second Language Research 32, 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316637401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2006). Paralinguistic focus on form. TESOL Quarterly 40.4, 841–855. doi: 10.2307/40264316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobao, A. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review 70.1, 158–187. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29.4, 511–537. https://doi.org/0+10170S0272263107070416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraco, M. & Kida, T. (2008). Gesture and the negotiation of meaning in a second language classroom. In McCafferty, S. G. & Stam, G. (eds.), Gesture: Second language acquisition and classroom research. London: Routledge, 280–297.Google Scholar
Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and some fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal 81.3, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.2307/329302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Manrique, E., Rossi, G. & Torreira, F. (2016). Timing of visual bodily behavior in repair sequences: Evidence from three languages. Discourse Processes 53.1, 175–204, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.992680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2016). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity: A replication. In Granena, G., Jackson, D., & Yilmaz, Y. (eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.3.13goo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35.1, 127–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics 44.1, 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2006.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M. (2010). Methodological reflections on gesture analysis in second language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research 26.1, 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309337639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D. W. & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N., Lantolf, J. P., Mackey, A., & Talmy, S (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36.3, 361–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. Language Learning 54.1, 79–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00249.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60.2, 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal 90.4, 536–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20.1, 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35.1, 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311200071XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32.2, 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 408–452.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (ed.), 408–452.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22.4, 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S. & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews and recommendations for the field. Language Learning. Published online 5 March 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Crowther, D., Kielstra, P. & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Exploring the potential role of eye gaze in eliciting English L2 speakers’ responses to recasts. Second Language Research 31.4, 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315589656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. C. & Pan, W. (2012). Recasts in the L2 classroom: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Educational Research 56.1, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. & Dunham, P. J. (1995). Joint attention: Its origin and role in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38.4, 771–799https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25.1, 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2008). When the gate opens: The interaction between social and linguistic goals in child second language development. In Philp, J., Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child's play? Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 210–224.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research 31.2, 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning 61.2, 325–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poteau, C. (2017). Pedagogical innovations in foreign language learning via interlocutor familiarity. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.5.0) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved 17 September 2017 from https://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Revesz, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning 62.1, 93–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D. C. & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science 29.6, 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossano, F., Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In Sidnell, J. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 133–164.Google Scholar
Saito, H. (1999). Dependence and interaction in frequency data analysis in SLA research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21.3, 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199003046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.) (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. & Barto, K. (2017). Introducing second language acquisition (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research 10.4, 361–392. doi: 10.1191/1362168806lr203oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58.4, 835–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smotrova, T. & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). The function of gesture in lexically focused L2 instructional conversations. Modern Language Journal 97.2, 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12008.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52.1, 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. (2012). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research 17.1, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), 171–195.Google Scholar
Young, A. & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promoting peer linguistic scaffolding? In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. & Loewen, S. (2016). Nonverbal behavior and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research 20.4, 459–478. https://doi.org/0.1177/1362168815577239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2018). The contingency of recasts, learners’ noticing, and L2 development: Insights on saliency from multiple modalities. In Gass, S., Spinner, P. & Behney, J. (eds.), Salience and SLA. New York: Routledge, 269–290.Google Scholar