Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:45:20.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTS OF READING ACTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS ON L2 READING PROCESSES AND NOTICING OF GLOSSED CONSTRUCTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2018

Jookyoung Jung  and
Andrea Révész
Jookyoung Jung*
Affiliation:
Korea University
Andrea Révész
Affiliation:
University College London
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jookyoung Jung, Center for English Language Education, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which manipulating the characteristics of second language reading activities affects the reading process and noticing of glossed linguistic constructions. Thirty-eight Korean learners of English read two texts under conditions that required more or less careful reading. For the condition intended to promote more careful reading, each paragraph of the texts was divided into three or four subparts. For the condition expected to elicit less careful reading, each paragraph was split into two sections. While reading the texts, the participants’ eye movements were recorded. Eleven students were further invited to participate in stimulated recall protocols. The target constructions were English unaccusative verbs and 10 pseudowords, which were glossed with Korean translations. The eye movement and stimulated recall data indicated that, as predicted, the participants processed the texts more carefully and attended to the target verbs more closely when paragraphs were divided into more subparts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 755 - 780
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.)

Footnotes

The experiment in this article earned an Open Data badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/search?query=Jung+in+press.

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bax, S. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye-tracking. Language Testing, 30, 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not CALL. Hispania, 87, 541–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunfaut, T., & McCray, G. (2015). Looking into test-takers’ cognitive processes whilst completing reading tasks: A mixed-method eye-tracking and stimulated recall study. ARAGs research reports online, AR/2015/001. London, UK: British Council.Google Scholar
Chung, T. (2014). Multiple factors in the L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs. IRAL, 52, 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Services. (2012). Official TOEFL iBT Tests. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 483–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guidi, C. (2009). Glossing for meaning and glossing for form: A computerized study of the effects of glossing and type of linguistic item on reading comprehension, noticing, and L2 learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Han, Z., & D’Angelo, A. (2009). Balancing between comprehension and acquisition: Proposing a dual approach. In Han, Z. & J Anderson, N. (Eds.), Second language reading research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp. 173–191). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Horiba, Y. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horiba, Y. (2013). Task-induced strategic processing in L2 text comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25, 98–125.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239–257. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4003_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalifa, H., & Weir, C. J. (2009). Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2009). Modifying the L2 reading text for improved comprehension and acquisition: Does it work? In Han, Z.-H. & Anderson, N. J. (Eds.), Second language reading research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp. 83–100). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martinez-Fernández, A. M. (2010). Experiences of remembering and knowing in SLA, L2 development, and text comprehension: A study of levels of awareness, type of glossing, and type of linguistic item (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
McCray, G. (2016). Analysing Tobii Studio extracted eye-tracking data in reading: Extracting reading measures from Tobii Studio eye-tracking data in R. Retrieved August 9, 2016, from http://rpubs.com/GarethMcCray/reading-metrics.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F., & Ray, M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 127–152.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp. 157–190). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2006). E-Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 53–81.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language (pp. 203–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar