Eye Tracking Research on the Use of Diff erent Forms of Instruction in Teaching Children with Hearing Impairment

Background. It is analyzed how the method of eye movement registration can be used to study the learning processes of children with hearing impairment. On the basis of oculomotor activity data, difficulties are identified that impede the learning of children with hearing impairment, which contributes to the discovery of effective ways of learning. A separate research issue is the search for the effective use of different forms of instruction.

Objective. Eye-tracking study of learning difficulties with different forms of instruction (as different forms of multimodal means of establishing joint attention).

Methods. A task was used in the form of a correction test to fill in the figures (according to the Pieron-Ruser method). To understand different forms of instruction in 4 series of the experiment, the combination of the speech form and the use of action in explaining the rule for filling in the figures varied. The main method is the method of eye movement registration using the PLabs portable tracker-the eye tracker.

Sample. The study sample consisted of 15 preschool children with hearing impairment (sensoneural hearing loss, class H90 according to ICD-11), eight girls, seven boys, mean age 5.4±0.8.

Results. The most important criterion for the effectiveness of different forms of instruction is the time from the beginning of the presentation of the instruction to the first fixation on the target object and the duration of attention delay in non-target areas. With multimodal instruction, longer fixations are observed in relevant areas and short fixations in irrelevant areas, fixations are more often and faster in relevant areas. With the transition to independent analysis, tasks at the beginning of fixation in relevant and irrelevant areas become reduced in time and quantity, and then begin to take on an increasingly long character.

Conclusion. A different form of instruction allows you to restructure the perception of a child with a hearing impairment, focusing attention on the elements that are relevant to the task. The most effective is the simultaneous use of multimodal means of explaining instructions to attract and regulate attention. 

References

1. Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Charoenying, T., Negrete, A. G., Bumbacher, E. (2012). Fostering hooks and shifts: tutorial tactics for guided mathematical discovery. Technology, Knowledge, and learning, 17(1–2), 61–86. doi: 10.1007/s10758-012-9192-7

2. Bakeman, R., Adamson, L.B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother-infant and peer-infant interaction. Child Development, 55, 1278–1289.

3. Bednarik, R., Shipilov, A. (2011). Gaze cursor during distant collaborative programming: A preliminary analysis. Dual Eye Tracking in CSCW. Retrieved from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=R.+Bednarik+and+A.+Shipilov.+Gaze+cursor+during+d.... (review date: 02.05.2022)

4. Beesley, T., Le Pelley, M.E. (2010). The influence of blocking on overt attention and associability in human learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 1–7

5. Blinnikova, I.V., Ishmuratova, Yu.A. (2021). Problem solving by experts and novices in the field of chemistry: analysis of errors, execution time and parameters of eye movements. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya (Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 14. Psychology), 2, 281–313. (In Russ.).

6. Boucheix, J.-M., Lowe, R.K., Putri, D.K., Groff, J. (2013). Cueing animations: Dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 71–84. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.005

7. Castellanos, I., Pisoni, D.B., Yu, C., Chen, C.H., & Houston, D.M. (2018). Embodied cognition in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants: Preliminary findings. H. Knoors & M. Mar-schark (Eds.), Evidence-based practices in deaf education (pp. 397–416). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190880545.001.0001

8. Charman, T., Swettenham, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Baird, G., Cox, A., Drew, A. (2001). Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 15, 481–498.

9. Chen, C.-h., Houston, D.M., Yu, C. (2021) Parent-Child Joint Behaviors in Novel Object Play Create High-Quality Data for Word Learning. Child Development, 92 (5), 1889–1905. doi:10.1111/cdev.13620

10. Chen, C-H., Castellanos, I., Yu, C., Houston, D.M. (2020). What leads to coordinated attention in parent–toddler interactions? Children's hearing status matters. Development science, 23, e12919. doi:10.1111/desc.12919

11. Chumachenko, D.V., Schwartz, A.Yu. (2016). The problem of transformation of perceptual processes in the course of learning: analysis of studies performed by the method of recording eye movements from the standpoint of the activity approach. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya (Psychological Research), 9 (49), 12. (In Russ.).

12. Dawson, G., Munson, J., Estes, A., Osterling, J., McPartland, J., Toth, K. (2002). Neurocognitive function and joint attention ability in young children with autism spectrum disorder versus developmental delay. Child Development, 73, 345–358.

13. Demareva, V.A., Polevaya, S.A. (2012). Searching for psychophysiological markers of foreign language proficiency: Evidence from eye tracking. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 85 (3), 392.

14. Dindar, K., Korkiakangas, T., Laitila, A., Karna, E. (2017). An interactional «live eye tracking» study in autism spectrum disorder: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in the study of gaze. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14 (3), 239–265.

15. Dunn, J., Brophy, M. (2005). Communication, relationships,and individual differences in children's understanding ofmind. J.W. Astington & J.A. Baird (Eds.), Why languagematters for theory of mind (pp. 50–69). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16. Epelboim, J, Suppes, P. (1997). Eye Movements during Geometrical Problem Solving. Perception, 26 (1), 138–138. doi: 10.1068/v970042

17. Ericsson, K.A., Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.

18. Fennell, C.T., Waxman, S.R. (2010). What paradox? Referential cues allow for infant use of phonetic detail in word learning. Child Development, 81 (5), 1376–1383. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01479.x

19. Jarodzka, H., van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning to see: guiding students’ attention via a model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learning and Instruction, 25, 62–70. doi: 10.1016/j.\learninstruc.2012.11.004

20. Koenig, S., & Lachnit, H. (2011). Curved saccade trajectories reveal conflicting predictions in associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37 (5), 1164–1177. doi: 10.1037/a0023718

21. Kotov, A., Kotova, T. (2013). Pronunciation of object names and categorical effect of perception. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal vysshei shkoly ekonomiki (Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics), 10, 75–85. (In Russ.).

22. Kotova, T.N. (2015). The content of joint attention in the formation of the meaning of a new word. Kognitivnaya nauka v Moskve: novye issledovaniya. Materialy konferentsii 16 iyunya 2015 (Cognitive science in Moscow: new research. Conference proceedings June 16, 2015) / Ed. E.V. Pechenkova, M.V. Falikman. M .: BukiVedi, IPPiP, 210–216. (In Russ.).

23. Kuravsky, L.S., Marmalyuk, P.A., Drummers, V.A., Bezrukikh, M.M., Demidov, A.A., Ivanov, V.V., Yuriev, G.A. (2013). Evaluation of the degree of formation of skills and competencies based on probabilistic distributions of oculomotor activity. Voprosy psikhologii (Questions of Psychology), 5, 1–17. (In Russ.).

24. Lai M.L., Tsai, M.J., Yang F.Y., Hsu, C.Y., Liu, T.C., Lee, S.W.Y., Lee, M.H., Chiou, G.L., Liang, J.C., & Tsai, C.C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90–115.

25. Laubrock, J, Engbert, R, Kliegl, R (2005). Microsaccade dynamics during covert attention. Vis Res, 45 (6), 721–730. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.09.029

26. Luneva, A.R., Lebed, A.A., Korovkin, S.Yu. (2015). Influence of prompt modality and awareness on the speed of solving insight and combinatorial problems. E.V. Pechenkova, M.V. Falikman (Eds.). M: BukiVedi, IPPiP, (Cognitive science in Moscow: new research. Conference materials June 16, 2015). (262–267). (In Russ.).

27. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 312–320. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312

28. Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Wainwright, R., Das Gupta, M., Fradley, E., Tuckey, M. (2002). Maternal mind-mindedness and attachment security as predictor of theory of mind understanding. Child Development, 73, 1715–1726.

29. Monroy, C., Chen, C.H., Houston, D., Yu, C. (2021). Action prediction during real-time parent-infant interactions. Developmental science, 24 (3), e13042. doi: 10.1111/desc.13042

30. Monroy, C., Houston, D., Yu, C. (2021). Joint Action in Deaf and Hearing Toddlers: A Mobile Eye-Tracking Study. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43. (Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/77z4h6rx) (review date: 06.09.2018).

31. Nystrom, M., Orgen, M. (2012) How illustrations influence performance and eye-movement behaviour when solving problems in vector calculus. Proceedings, In LTHs 7:e Pedagogiska Inspirationskonferens.

32. Pêcher, C., Lemercier, C., Cellier, J.-M. (2009). Emotions drive attention: Effects on driver’s behaviour. Safety Science, 47 (9), 1254–1259, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2009.03.011.

33. Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Hesse, F.W. (2014). Extending multimedia research: How do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning from text and pictures. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 73–84. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.022

34. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20 (2), 100–110.

35. Schroer, S.E, Yu, C. (2021). The Sensorimotor Dynamics of Joint Attention. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43. (Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2kn7k904) (review date: 06.09.2018)

36. Schwartz, A.Yu. (2019). Does the real form interact with the ideal? Investigation of mastery of counting on the number line by recording eye movements. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki (Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics), 16(1), 145–163. doi: 10.17323/1813-8918-2019-1-145-163 (In Russ.).

37. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10 (2), 70–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009.

38. Shockley, K., Richardson, D.C., & Dale, R. (2009). Conversation and coordinative structures. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1 (2), 305–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01021.x

39. Shvarts, A. (2018). Joint attention in resolving the ambiguity of different presentations: a dual eye-tracking study of the teachinglearning process. Signs of signification: Semiotics in mathematics education research. pp. 73–103. N. Presmeg, L. Radford, W.-M. Roth, G. Kadunz (Eds.). Dordrecht: Springer.

40. Smith, L., Ulvund, L. (2003). The role of joint attention in later development among preterm children: Linkages between early and middle childhood. Social Development, 1, 222–234.

41. Suarez-Rivera, C., Smith, L. B., Yu, C. (2019). Multimodal parent behaviors within joint attention support sustained attention in infants. Developmental Psychology, 55 (1), 96–109. doi: 10.1037/dev0000628

42. Tomasello, M, Farrar, J.M. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454–1463

43. Welham, A.K., Wills, A.J. (2011). Unitization, similarity, and overt attention in categorization and exposure. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1518–1533. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0124-x

44. Yu, C., Smith, L.B. (2016). Multiple sensory-motor pathways lead to coordinated visual attention. Cognitive Science, 41 (S1), 1–27.

45. Yu, C., Smith, L.B. (2017). Hand–Eye Coordination Predicts Joint Attention. Child Development, 88 (6), 2060–2078.

46. Yuan, L., Xu, T.L., Yu, C., Smith, L. (2019). Sustained visual attention is more than seeing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 324–336. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.11.020