CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Online and Blended LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

Eye movements of online Chinese learners

Open access
Stickler, Ursula, Shi, Lijing·2015·CALICO Journal
DOI 10.1558/calico.v32i1.25964
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although online tutorials are becoming commonplace for language teaching, very few studies to date have provided insights into learners’ behaviours in synchronous online interactions from their own perspective. This study employs eyetracking technology to investigate ten learners’ attention during synchronous online language learning in a multimodal environment. The participants were learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language at beginners or lower-intermediate level. While learners took part in two different online activities, one focussing on reading, the other on interaction with others, their gaze focus was tracked, and in subsequent stimulated recall interviews the learners reflected on their engagement with the screen and their intentions while reading or speaking online. Our findings show that during reading tasks, when Pinyin transcriptions as well as Chinese characters were presented, all beginner and lower intermediate participants focused to some degree on the Pinyin. In the interactive task learners’ gaze was drawn to elements of the screen that were not immediately necessary for technical or linguistic reasons but that could be interpreted as containing social presence information, e.g. names listed and emoticons employed by other users.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1558/calico.v32i1.25964

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Teachers have to manage both interaction and learner attention in an electronic platform that disperses learners' attention more easily than traditional classrooms.

    “Teachers have to manage both interaction and learner attention in an electronic platform that disperses learners' attention more easily than traditional classrooms (e.g., Stickler & Shi, 2015).”

    From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Stickler & Shi, 2015

    The Conclusion reports that learners in interactive online tutorials attended to social elements as well as task content, supporting the need to consider both interaction and attention. The paper does not establish that electronic platforms disperse attention more easily than traditional classrooms, or directly test how teachers manage that attention. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Attention to social and technical features when interacting online can cause mismatches between teachers' and learners' expectations.

    “(b) a significant amount of learners' attention is devoted to social and technical features when interacting online, and this can cause mismatches between teachers' and learners' expectations (Stickler & Shi, 2013;2015);”

    From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Stickler & Shi, 2015

    In “Activity 2: Interactive” (page unavailable), the paper reports that social and technical features accounted for approximately 20% and 10% of fixation duration, respectively. In “Online teaching of Chinese as a Foreign Language” (page unavailable), it reports a previous study's finding of mismatches between teachers' intentions and learners' perceptions. It does not establish that attention to those features caused the mismatches. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A significant amount of learners' attention is devoted to social and technical features when interacting online.

    “(b) a significant amount of learners' attention is devoted to social and technical features when interacting online, and this can cause mismatches between teachers' and learners' expectations (Stickler & Shi, 2013;2015);”

    From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Stickler & Shi, 2015

    In “Activity 2: Interactive,” social and technical areas account for approximately 20% and 10% of fixation duration, respectively, supporting the attention claim for the interactive task. The “Online teaching of Chinese as a Foreign Language” section reports that a previous study found mismatches between teachers’ intentions and students’ perceptions, but this paper does not establish that attention to social and technical features causes those mismatches. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Bax, S. (2003). CALL-past, present and future. System, 31 (1): 13-28. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4 · DOI
  2. Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language educa- tion. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (2): 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2011040101 · DOI
  3. Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31: 19-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026719051100002X · DOI
  4. Chun, D. M. (2013). Contributions of Tracking User Behavior to SLA Research. CALICO Journal, 1-2: 256-262.
  5. Dearing, R. and King, L. (2007). Languages Review. London: DfES.
  6. Duchowski, A. T. (2003). Eye Tracking Methodology. Theory and practice. London: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3750-4 · DOI
  7. Fischer, R. (2007). How do we Know what Students are Actually Doing? Monitoring Stu- dents' Behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409-442. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220701746013 · DOI
  8. Godwin-Jones, R. (2012). Emerging technologies. Challenging hegemonies in online learn- ing. Language Learning & Technology (LLT), 16 (2): 4-13.
  9. Hampel, R. and de los Arcos, B. (2013). Interacting at a distance: A critical review of the role of ICT in developing the learner-context interface in a university language pro- gramme. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (2): 158-178. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/17501229.2013.776051 · DOI
  10. Hampel, R. and Stickler, U., 2012. The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL 24 (2): 116-137. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/S095834401200002X · DOI · Paper page
  11. Heiser, S., Stickler, U. and Furnborough, C. (2013). Ready, steady, speak online: Student training in the use of an online synchronous conferencing tool. CALICO Journal, 30 (2): 227-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.2.226-251 · DOI
  12. Hubbard, P., Schulze, M. and Smith, B. (Eds). (2013). Learner-computer interaction in lan- guage education: A festschrift in honor of Robert Fischer. CALICO Journal, 1-2.
  13. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J. and Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53 (1): 5-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910123753 · DOI
  14. Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psy- chology, 8 (4): 441-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kan, Q. and McCormick, R. (2012). Building course cohesion: The use of online forums in distance Chinese language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 27 (1): 44-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.695739 · DOI
  16. Koda, K. (1992). The effects of lower-level processing skills on FL reading performance: Implications for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 76 (4): 502-512. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb05400.x · DOI
  17. Lai, C. and Morrison, B. (2013). Towards an agenda for learner preparation in technology- enhanced language learning environments. CALICO Journal, 30 (2): 154-162. http://dx. doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.2.154-162 · DOI
  18. Lee, C. H. and Kalyuga, S. (2011). Effectiveness of different Pinyin presentation formats in learning Chinese characters: A cognitive load perspective. Language Learning, 61 (4): 1099-1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00666.x · DOI
  19. Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L. and Lee, S. (2003). A look at the research on computer- based technology use in second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990- 2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (3): 250-273. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/15391523.2002.10782348 · DOI
  20. Montoro Sanjosé, C. R. (2012). The language learning activity of individual learners using online tasks. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
  21. O'Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer mediated communication and language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21 (3): 227-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095 88220802090253 · DOI
  22. Ghaoui, C. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction, 211-219.
  23. ch034 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62 (8): 1457-1506. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ren, G.-Q. and Yang, Y. (2010). Syntactic boundaries and comma placement during silent reading of Chinese text: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Research in Reading, 33 (2): 168-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01406.x · DOI
  26. Robin, R. M. (2013). CALL and less commonly taught languages. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders and M. Warschauer (Eds), Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 303-321. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  27. Smith, B. (2010). Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC. In F. M. Hult (Ed.), Directions and Prospects for Educational Linguistics (Vol. 11), 79-97: Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90- 481-9136-9_6 · DOI
  28. Spitzberg, B. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer- mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu- nication, 11 (2), online. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x · DOI
  29. Stickler, U. and Shi, L. (2013). Supporting Chinese speaking skills online. System, 41 (1): 50-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.12.001 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19 (2): 105-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0 958344007000225 · DOI
  31. Sun, S. Y. H. (2011). Online language teaching: The Pedagogical challenges. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3 (3): 428-447.
  32. Wang, J. (2014). Reading strategies and reading comprehension retention with and without a pop-up dictionary by beginning learners of Chinese. CALICO Journal, 31 (2): 244-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.2.244-260 · DOI
  33. Wang, Y. (2004). Distance language learning: Interactive fourth-generation Internet-based videoconferencing. CALICO Journal, 21 (2): 373-395.
  34. Wang, Y. and Chen, N.-S. (2007). Online Synchronous Language Learning: SLMS over the Internet. Innovate, 3(3), 8 pages (online).
  35. Wang, Y. and Chen, N.-S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning manage- ment system: arguments from the distance language classroom. Computer Assisted Lan- guage Learning, 22 (1): 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220802613773 · DOI
  36. Wang, Y. and Chen, N.-S. (2010). The collaborative language learning attributes of cyber face-to-face interaction: the perspectives of the learner. Interactive Learning Environ- ments, 20 (4): 311-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494821003769081 · DOI
  37. Wang, Y., Chen, N.-S. and Levy, M. (2010). Teacher training in a synchronous cyber face- to-face classroom: Characterizing and supporting the online teachers' learning process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23 (4): 277-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588 221.2010.493523 · DOI
  38. White, C. (2009). Towards a learner-based theory of distance language learning: The con- cept of the learner-context interface. In P. Hubbard (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, 97-112. London: Routledge.
  39. Yamada, M. and Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based lan- guage learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20 (1): 37-65. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/09588220601118503 · DOI
  40. Yamada, M. and Akahori, K. (2009). Awareness and performance through self-and partner's image in videoconferencing. CALICO Journal, 27 (1): 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/ cj.27.1.1-25 · DOI
  41. Ye, L. (2011). Teaching and learning Chinese as a foreign language in the United States: To delay or not to delay the character introduction. Unpublished dissertation. Georgia State University.
  42. Ye, L. (2013). Shall we delay teaching characters in teaching Chinese as a foreign language? Foreign Language Annals, 46 (4): 610-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12049 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers

    Baralt, M., & Morcillo Gómez, J. (2017) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44630 · Cited by 95 · see citing works

    “…and these can be more challenging for the teacher to promote online (Baralt et al., 2016; Compton, 2009; Gleason, 2013; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Stickler & Shi, 2015); (d) learners may feel more self-conscious in video-based interaction (Coverdale-Jones, 2000); and (e) teachers have to…”
    Background

Authors
Stickler, U., & Shi, L.
Affiliations
  • The Open University (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
ORCID
Venue
CALICO Journal
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Published
2015-01-01
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
52-81
ISSN
  • 0742-7778 (ISSN-L)
  • 2056-9017
DOI
10.1558/calico.v32i1.25964
OpenAlex
W2126001956
Cited by
38
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
40.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CALICO Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
British Academy
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
eye movements, Chinese as a foreign language, online language learning, synchronous interaction, student attention, gaze tracking, pinyin, Chinese characters, social presence, multimodal learning environments, learner behavior, stimulated recall

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review