Students in sight: Using mobile eye-tracking to investigate mathematics teachers’ gaze behaviour during task instruction-giving

Mobile eye-tracking research has provided evidence both on teachers' visual attention in relation to their intentions and on teachers’ student-centred gaze patterns. However, the importance of a teacher’s eye-movements when giving instructions is unexplored. In this study we used mobile eye-tracking to investigate six teachers’ gaze patterns when they are giving task instructions for a geometry problem in four different phases of a mathematical problem-solving lesson. We analysed the teachers’ eye-tracking data, their verbal data, and classroom video recordings. Our paper brings forth a novel interpretative lens for teacher’s pedagogical intentions communicated by gaze during teacher-led moments such as when introducing new tasks, reorganizing the social structures of students for collaboration, and lesson wrap-ups. A change in the students’ task changes teachers’ gaze patterns, which may indicate a change in teacher’s pedagogical intention. We found that teachers gazed at students throughout the lesson, whereas teachers’ focus was at task-related targets during collaborative instruction-giving more than during the introductory and reflective task instructions. Hence, we suggest two previously not detected gaze types: contextualizing gaze for task readiness and collaborative gaze for task focus to contribute to the present discussion on teacher gaze

Pick the smaller number: No influence of linguistic markedness on three-digit number processing

The symbolic number comparison task has been widely used to investigate the cognitive representation and underlying processes of multi-digit number processing. The standard procedure to establish numerical distance and compatibility effects in such number comparison paradigms usually entails asking participants to indicate the larger of two presented multi-digit Arabic numbers rather than to indicate the smaller number. In terms of linguistic markedness, this procedure includes the unmarked/base form in the task instruction (i.e., large). Here we evaluate distance and compatibility effects in a three-digit number comparison task observed in Bahnmueller et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01216) using a marked task instruction (i.e., ‘pick the smaller number’). Moreover, we aimed at clarifying whether the markedness of task instruction influences common numerical effects and especially componential processing as indexed by compatibility effects. We instructed German- and English-speaking adults (N = 52) to indicate the smaller number in a three-digit number comparison task as opposed to indicating the larger number in Bahnmueller et al. (2015). We replicated standard effects of distance and compatibility in the new pick the smaller number experiment. Moreover, when comparing our findings to Bahnmueller et al. (2015), numerical effects did not differ significantly between the two studies as indicated by both frequentist and Bayesian analysis. Taken together our data suggest that distance and compatibility effects alongside componential processing of multi-digit numbers are rather robust against variations of linguistic markedness of task instructions.

Do task instructions influence readers' topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest? A mixed methods study

<p>The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate whether task instructions influence readers’ topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest. Year 10 high school students completed a topic beliefs scale about a controversial topic (i.e., whether a prominent transportation tunnel should be widened) and provided a written justification of their beliefs. Then they were randomly assigned to one of four pre-reading task instruction conditions before reading a text that presented arguments that supported and opposed the widening of the tunnel. The first condition received rationale instructions, which provided an explanation as to why putting forth effort during the reading activity was useful and worthwhile. The second condition received evidence instructions, which directed readers to focus on the evidence supporting each argument in the text. The third condition received both evidence and rationale instructions. The fourth condition, the control condition, was asked to read for a general purpose. After reading, participants again completed the topic beliefs scale and topic belief justification. Experimental results showed that task instructions affected topic beliefs and topic belief justifications, but did not affect task interest. More specifically, participants who received evidence instructions moderated their beliefs after reading, and participants in the evidence condition and rationale condition included more opposing arguments in their topic belief justifications after reading. The interview data indicated that task instructions influenced readers’ goals and the strategies they used to meet those goals. The data sets were complementary: the quantitative data indicated differences in topic beliefs and topic belief justifications and the qualitative data allowed us to interpret why these differences occurred. Some students displayed belief-reflection, whereas others displayed belief-protection. Results are discussed and implications are provided.</p>

Do task instructions influence readers' topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest? A mixed methods study

<p>The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate whether task instructions influence readers’ topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest. Year 10 high school students completed a topic beliefs scale about a controversial topic (i.e., whether a prominent transportation tunnel should be widened) and provided a written justification of their beliefs. Then they were randomly assigned to one of four pre-reading task instruction conditions before reading a text that presented arguments that supported and opposed the widening of the tunnel. The first condition received rationale instructions, which provided an explanation as to why putting forth effort during the reading activity was useful and worthwhile. The second condition received evidence instructions, which directed readers to focus on the evidence supporting each argument in the text. The third condition received both evidence and rationale instructions. The fourth condition, the control condition, was asked to read for a general purpose. After reading, participants again completed the topic beliefs scale and topic belief justification. Experimental results showed that task instructions affected topic beliefs and topic belief justifications, but did not affect task interest. More specifically, participants who received evidence instructions moderated their beliefs after reading, and participants in the evidence condition and rationale condition included more opposing arguments in their topic belief justifications after reading. The interview data indicated that task instructions influenced readers’ goals and the strategies they used to meet those goals. The data sets were complementary: the quantitative data indicated differences in topic beliefs and topic belief justifications and the qualitative data allowed us to interpret why these differences occurred. Some students displayed belief-reflection, whereas others displayed belief-protection. Results are discussed and implications are provided.</p>

ATTENTION TO FORM AND MEANING REVISITED

Motivated by a series of interconnected studies on simultaneous attention to form and meaning, we revisit L2 learners’ real-time processing of text by using eye-tracking as an unobtrusive method to provide concurrent data on attention allocation. Seventy-five L2 Spanish learners were instructed to attend to an assigned form in a reading passage and to press a button when they noticed it. After reading the passage, the learners answered 10 multiple-choice comprehension questions. The participants’ responses to the comprehension questions and their reading behaviors reflected in eye-movement data suggest that attention to grammatical form may hinder L2 learners’ simultaneous attention to form and meaning. However, individual differences in global text processing contributed to the differences in the participants’ text-comprehension scores over and above the task instruction to attend to form: Slower L2 readers who read the passage more carefully showed better text comprehension.