Word Skipping in Reading English as a Foreign Language: Evidence from Eye Tracking
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During reading, readers never fixate on all words in the text; shorter words sometimes gain zero fixation and skipped by the reader. Relying on E-Z Reader Model, this research hypothesized that a similar skipping effect also exists for a second language. The current study examined word skipping rates in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) with 75 EFL learners by using eye tracking methodology. The results showed that word skipping was affected by EFL reading proficiency significantly and articles (a, an, the) were skipped more than content words. Furthermore, more skilled learners were observed to have less fixation count and skipped more words during reading while less skilled learners employed more fixations and skipped less words. Eye tracking as a novel method to observe learner development and progress in EFL reading was also discussed. 
 References
 
 Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Sholl, A.. & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical andconceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations andnaming times. Memory & Cognition, 24, 477–492.
 Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints andparafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–388.
 Binder, K. S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1999). Extraction of information to the left of thefixated word in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception andPerformance, 25, 1162–1172.
 Brysbaert, M., & Vitu, F. (1998). Word Skipping: Implications for Theories of Eye MovementControl in Reading. In: Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception. (pp. 125–147).G. Underwood, (Ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
 Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In: EyeMovements in Reading: Perceptual and Language processes , (pp. 275–307), K. Rayner (ed.).New York: Academic Press.
 Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., Skorinko, J., & Tullis, T. (2011). Online viewing and aestheticpreferences of generation y and the baby boom generation: Testing user web site experiencethrough eye tracking. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 121–158.
 Dolgunsöz, E. (2015). Measuring Attention in Second Language Reading Using Eye-tracking:The Case of the Noticing Hypothesis. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 8(5).
 Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., Desmet, T., & De Baecke, C. (2004). Word skipping in reading: Onthe interplay of linguistic and visual factors. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,16(1–2), 79–103.
 Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attentionin incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second languageAcquisition, 35(3), 483–517.
 Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: Fixationmeasures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 47, 201–221.
 Joe, A. (1995). Text based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Foreign languageResearch, 11(2), 95–111.
 Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations tocomprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 109–130.
 Liu, P. L. (2014). Using eye tracking to understand the responses of learners to vocabularylearning strategy instruction and use. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 330–343.
 McNeill, A. (1996). Vocabulary Knowledge profiles: Evidence from Chinese speaking ESLspeakers. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1), 39–63.
 Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E., & Rayner, K. (2003). Modeling eye movements in reading. In: TheMind’s Eyes: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research. (pp. 361–390).J. Hyona, R. Radach, & H. Deubel, (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
 Radach, R., & Kempe, V. (1993). An individual analysis of initial fixation positions inreading. In: Perception and cognition: Advances in eye movement research (pp. 213–226). G.d’Ydewalle & J. Van Rensbergen (Eds.). Amsterdam: North Holland.
 Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years ofResearch, Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3), 372–422
 Rayner, K., & Fischer, M. H. (1996). Mindless reading revisited: eye movements duringreading and scanning are different. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(5), 734–747.
 Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements duringreading: a further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504–509.
 Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., Ashby, J., & Pollatsek, A. (2001). Eye movement control inreading: word predictability has little influence on initial landing positions in words. VisionResearch, 41(7), 943–954.
 Rayner, K., Reichle, E. D., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movement control in reading and theE-Z Reader model. In: Cognitive Processes in Eye Guidance (pp. 131-162). G. Underwood(Ed.),. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: acomparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptionand Performance, 22, 1188–1200.
 Reichle, E., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eyemovement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.
 Scarcella, R. & C. Zimmerman (1998). ESL student performance on a text of academiclexicon. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 20(1), 27–49.
 Schilling, H. E., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision,and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory &Cognition, 26(6), 1270–1281.
 Schroeder, S., Hyönä, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2015). Developmental eye-tracking research inreading: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 500–510.
 Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC.Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 53–81.
 Wesche, M. & T. Paribakht (1996). Assessing vocabulary knowledge: depth vs. breadth.Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13–40.
 Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2013). Factors Influencing the Use of Captions byForeign Language Learners: An Eye‐Tracking Study. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1),254–275.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle