The visual signature of non-understanding: A systematic replication of McDonough, Trofimovich, Lu, and Abashidze ()

This replication study seeks to extend the generalizability of an exploratory study (McDonough et al., 2019) that identified holds (i.e., temporary cessation of dynamic movement by the listener) as a reliable visual cue of non-understanding. Conversations between second language (L2) English speakers in the Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca Interaction (CELFI; McDonough & Trofimovich, 2019) with non-understanding episodes (e.g., pardon?, what?, sorry?) were sampled and compared with understanding episodes (i.e., follow-up questions). External raters (N = 90) assessed the listener's comprehension under three rating conditions: +face/+voice, −face/+voice, and +face/−voice. The association between non-understanding and holds in McDonough et al. (2019) was confirmed. Although raters distinguished reliably between understanding and non-understanding episodes, they were not sensitive to facial expressions when judging listener comprehension. The initial and replication findings suggest that holds remain a promising visual signature of non-understanding that can be explored in future theoretically- and pedagogically-oriented contexts.

Contextualizing Mathematical Problem-Solving Instruction for Secondary Students with Extensive Support Needs: A Systematic Replication

Replication research provides evidence to establish, refute, or support evidence-based practices. Systematic replications are also necessary to determine “what works for whom when.” The purpose of this study was to conduct a conceptual systematic replication to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent treatment package on multiplicative problem solving for middle school students with extensive support needs. Using a modified schema-based instructional strategy, three participants were taught to solve percent of change problems contextualized in real-world scenarios and a purchasing strategy (i.e., next-dollar strategy) to help them determine how much money was needed to pay for services/products. In addition, goal-setting and self-graphing activities supported development of self-determination skills. Findings from the multiple probe across participant design demonstrate a functional relation between the intervention and independent problem-solving behaviors of all three participants. Students also generalized problem-solving behaviors when presented with real-world stimuli of coupons and receipts. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

A Falsificationist Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses in Social and Behavioral Sciences: Systematic Replications Framework

Auxiliary hypotheses (AHs) are indispensable in hypothesis-testing because without them specification of testable predictions and consequently falsification is impossible. However, as AHs enter the test along with the main hypothesis, non-corroborative findings are ambiguous. Due to this ambiguity, AHs may also be used to deflect falsification by providing “alternative explanations” of findings. This problem is not fatal to the extent that AHs are independently validated and thereby safely relegated to unproblematic background knowledge. But this is not always possible, especially in the so-called “softer” sciences where often theories are loosely organized, measurements are noisy and constructs are vague. The Systematic Replications Framework (SRF) we propose provides a methodological solution by disentangling the implications of the findings for the main hypothesis and the AHs through pre-planned series of logically interlinked close and conceptual replications. In this way, SRF provides an objective assessment of whether the corroboration of a hypothesis is conditional on particular AHs. SRF endorses a falsificationist, severe testing approach that facilitates testing alternative explanations associated with different AHs. It has several theoretical and practical advantages over previous randomization-based systematic replication proposals, which generally assume a philosophically problematic neo-operationalist approach and misleadingly prescribe exploration-oriented strategies in confirmatory contexts.