Teachers' Perspectives on Second Language Task Difficulty: Insights From Think-Alouds and Eye Tracking

The majority of empirical studies that have so far investigated task features in order to inform task grading and sequencing decisions have been grounded in hypothesis-testing research. Few studies have attempted to adopt a bottom-up approach in order to explore what task factors might contribute to task difficulty. The aim of this study was to help fill this gap by eliciting teachers’ perspectives on sources of task difficulty. We asked 16 English as a second language (ESL) teachers to judge the linguistic ability required to carry out four pedagogic tasks and consider how they would manipulate the tasks to suit the abilities of learners at lower and higher proficiency. While contemplating the tasks, the teachers thought aloud, and we also tracked their eye movements. The majority of teachers’ think-aloud comments revealed that they were primarily concerned with linguistic factors when assessing task difficulty. Conceptual demands were most frequently proposed as a way to increase task difficulty, whereas both linguistic and conceptual factors were suggested by teachers when considering modifications to decrease task difficulty. The eye-movement data, overall, were aligned with the teachers’ think-aloud comments. These findings are discussed with respect to existing task taxonomies and future research directions

Research methods

This paper begins with the assumption that there is no perfect study. Rather, the process of conducting language acquisition research involves numerous decisions, each of which is accompanied by a set of strengths and weaknesses and which must be justified as appropriate to the substantive domain and the research questions being addressed. The chapter describes many of these choices and their corresponding benefits and drawbacks, illustrating key concepts and techniques with examples while making frequent reference to methodological issues and trends currently taking place in the field. In particular, we focus on major decisions related to (a) research designs, both descriptive/observational and (quasi-)experimental; (b) elicitation techniques and instruments for collecting data both linguistic (e.g., grammaticality judgment tasks) and non-linguistic (e.g., questionnaires) in nature; and (c) quantitative (e.g., analysis of variance) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory) techniques for analyzing data

A primer on qualitative research synthesis in TESOL

Secondary research in the form of literature reviews facilitates consolidation and transfer of knowledge. In the field of TESOL, the majority of secondary research is conducted in the form of narrative reviews, which rely on the Plonsky’s selection and interpretation of primary studies and findings. Systematic reviews, which can be broadly categorized into meta-analysis (focusing on quantitative data) and qualitative research synthesis (focusing on qualitative data), are gaining popularity (see Plonsky, 2017) but are still less common. In particular, qualitative data collected from language classrooms, which are often criticized because of their lack of generalizability, are seldom synthesized in a systematic fashion. Against this backdrop, this article first attempts to make a case for conducting qualitative research synthesis in the field of TESOL. Second, this article provides a methodological framework and an example of how qualitative research synthesis can be conducted. The article closes with recommendations to promote qualitative research synthesis in the field of TESOL.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Teachers’ beliefs and practices about oral corrective feedback in university EFL classes

This study examined (in)congruences between beliefs and practices of EFL university teachers on in‐class oral corrective feedback (OCF). The participants were 20 university English language teachers from a private university in Turkey. Data were collected via video‐recorded non‐participant detached observation, a task about OCF to determine the beliefs of the teachers, and a stimulated recall interview. The results showed incongruence between what the teachers said they believed and what they did. However, teachers’ beliefs and practices were similar regarding whether the errors should be corrected, when errors should be corrected, and who should correct them. Particularly notable in this study was the finding that those teachers with the greatest incongruence almost always stood by their decisions, even after they watched their unsuccessful OCF practices