Cited by 178EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC

Open access
Smith, Bryan·2012·Language Learning & Technology

Abstract

This study investigated whether eye-tracking technology could be employed as a measure of noticing of corrective feedback (in the form of explicit recasts) during NS-NNS taskbased synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC).Pairs of university-level learners of English (n = 18) engaged in a short chat interaction task with a native speaker, who provided intensive and explicit corrective recasts.Participants' eye gaze record was compared to that from a stimulated recall.Noticing events (increased visual attention) were compiled and compared from each technique to determine whether these two techniques yielded similar data.Noticing events from each technique were also compared to results of immediate and delayed post tests of the targeted items.Results confirm the strength of both measures as methods for measuring what learners notice in the corrective feedback during SCMC.Further, the eye tracking and stimulated recall data also suggest that although learners engage in similar amounts of viewing activity across recasts targeting various linguistic categories, they are able to notice semantic and syntactic targets more easily than morphological targets.Results are discussed in terms of eye tracking as a potentially valuable tool in exploring the nature of noticing in instructed SLA and also in terms of argued benefits of CMC for language learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.64152/10125/44300

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Smith (2012) found a strong, positive correlation between eye-tracking and stimulated recall measures, with learners noticing semantic and syntactic features more than morphological ones.

    “He found a strong, positive correlation between the two measures, with learners noticing semantic and syntactic features more than morphological ones.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Smith 2012

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, B.
Corresponding author
Smith, Bryan
Venue
Language Learning & Technology
Published
2012-10-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
53-81
ISSN
1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169642153
Cited by
177
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
57.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language learning & technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
  • Language learning & technology (cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
noticing, corrective feedback, eye tracking, synchronous computer-mediated communication, task-based language learning, stimulated recall, second language acquisition, chat interaction

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