Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T12:12:49.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY IN EYE-TRACKING

An Empirical Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2013

Patti Spinner*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Susan M. Gass
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Jennifer Behney
Affiliation:
Youngstown State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Patti Spinner, SLS Program, B-258 Wells Hall, MichiganState University, East Lansing, MI 48824; E-mail: spinnerp@msu.edu

Abstract

Eye-trackers are becoming increasingly widespread as a tool to investigate secondlanguage (L2) acquisition. Unfortunately, clear standards formethodology—including font size, font type, and placement of interestareas—are not yet available. Although many researchers stress theneed for ecological validity—that is, the simulation of naturalreading conditions—it may not be prudent to use such a design toinvestigate new directions in eye-tracking research, and particularly inresearch involving small lexical items such as articles. In this study, weexamine whether two different screen layouts can lead to different results in aneye-tracking study on the L2 acquisition of Italian gender. The results of anexperiment with an ecologically valid design are strikingly different than theresults of an experiment with a design tailored to track eye movements toarticles. We conclude that differences in screen layout can have significanteffects on results and that it is crucial that researchers report screen layoutinformation.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable