Eye-trackers are becoming increasingly widespread as a tool to investigate second
language (L2) acquisition. Unfortunately, clear standards for
methodology—including font size, font type, and placement of interest
areas—are not yet available. Although many researchers stress the
need for ecological validity—that is, the simulation of natural
reading conditions—it may not be prudent to use such a design to
investigate new directions in eye-tracking research, and particularly in
research involving small lexical items such as articles. In this study, we
examine whether two different screen layouts can lead to different results in an
eye-tracking study on the L2 acquisition of Italian gender. The results of an
experiment with an ecologically valid design are strikingly different than the
results of an experiment with a design tailored to track eye movements to
articles. We conclude that differences in screen layout can have significant
effects on results and that it is crucial that researchers report screen layout
information.