Can Instructors' eye gaze promote video learning?

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.02291

Abstract

Abstract:

The eye gaze of instructors is an important but easily overlooked element in video-based learning environments. The importance of the potential roles of eye gaze can be explained by several theories, such as parasocial theory and social agent theory. These theories suggest that an instructor’s eye gaze in video-based learning environments can promote learning. Other theories such as cognitive theory of multimedia learning and cognitive load theory suggest that an instructor’s eye gaze may hinder learning. While these theories predict the effect of an instructor’s eye gaze differently, in this review article we found inconsistencies in several empirical studies. First, the retention and transfer tests are mainly used to gauge the learning outcome. On retention tests, 9 (60%) of 15 studies show that eye gaze in the video can improve students' retention test, and 6 studies (40%) show that eye gaze can hinder students' performance on retention tests. The median effect size for the eye gaze facilitated retention test was d = 0.41. The median effect sizes for the guided gaze and direct gaze facilitated retention tests were d = 0.28 and d = 0.42. On the transfer test, 6 (40%) of 15 studies show that eye gaze in the video can improve students' transfer test, 1 study (7%) shows that eye gaze can reduce students’ performance on a transfer test, and 8 studies (53%) show that eye gaze can hinder students' performance on transfer tests. The median effect size for the eye gaze facilitated transfer tests was d = 0.39. The median effect sizes for the guided gaze and direct gaze facilitated transfer tests were d = 0.24 and d = 0.42. The above study showed a small facilitative effect of eye gaze on retention and transfer tests. Second, in terms of attentional processing, previous studies have focused on the learner's fixation times on learning materials. 6 (38%) of 16 studies show that eye gaze in the video can increase students' fixation times on learning material, 7 studies (44%) show that eye gaze can reduce students’ fixation times on learning material, and 6 studies (38%) show that eye gaze can hinder students' fixation times on learning material. The median effect size for the eye gaze facilitated fixation times on learning material was d = 0.06. The median effect sizes for the guided gaze and direct gaze facilitated fixation times were d = 0.19 and d =﹣0.14.The above studies suggest that the effect of eye gaze on attentional processing is relatively weak. Third, in terms of subjective experience, parasocial interactions and cognitive load were mainly explored. For the parasocial interaction, 5 (56%) of 9 studies show that eye gaze in the video can improve students' parasocial interaction, and 4 studies (44%) show that eye gaze can hinder students' retention test. The median effect size for the eye gaze facilitated parasocial interaction was d = 0.35. The median effect sizes for the guided gaze and direct gaze facilitated parasocial interaction were d = 0.04 and d = 0.37. Regarding cognitive load, 3 (33%) of 9 studies show that eye gaze in the video can reduce students' cognitive load, and 6 studies (44%) show that eye gaze can increase students' cognitive load. The median effect size for the eye gaze facilitated cognitive load was d =﹣0.02. The median effect sizes for the guided gaze and direct gaze facilitated cognitive load were d = -0.03 and d = 0.09. The above study showed a small facilitative effect of eye gaze on parasocial interaction, but a very weak effect on cognitive load. In addition, the above findings support the parasocial interaction theory, social agency theory, and signaling principle, but not the cognitive theory of multimedia learning or the cognitive load theory. Future research needs to consider the moderating role of the type of eye gaze, facial expressions, prior knowledge experience, and the nature of the learned material. Further exploration is needed for the cognitive processing of eye gaze affecting learning and the related cognitive neural activity.

Key words: eye gaze, instructor, video learning, multimedia learning

CLC Number:

B849: G44

KUANG Ziyi, CHENG Meixia, LI Wenjing, WANG Fuxing, HU Xiangen. Can Instructors' eye gaze promote video learning?[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(10): 2291-2302.

Figures/Tables 3

References 45

[1]	陈闽楠. (2020). 教学视频中教师面部表情和眼睛注视对学习者学习的影响 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[2]	霍鹏辉, 冯成志, 陈庭继. (2021). 注视者及观察者因素对注视知觉的影响. 心理科学进展, 29(2), 238-251.
[3]	匡子翌. (2020). 社会线索对视频学习的影响:基于眼神注视、身体方向和手势的作用 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[4]	李文静. (2019). 教学代理对多媒体学习的影响极其作用机制 (博士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[5]	田媛, 亓栀, 黄湘琳, 向虹钰, 汪颖. (2021). 社会线索促进在线学习的认知神经机制. 电化教育研究, 42(2), 63-69.
[6]	王红艳, 胡卫平, 皮忠玲, 葛文双, 徐益龙, 范笑天, 梁燕玲. (2018). 教师行为对教学视频学习效果影响的眼动研究. 远程教育杂志, 36(5), 105-114.
[7]	杨九民, 皮忠玲, 章仪, 徐珂, 喻邱晨, 黄勃. (2020). 教学视频中教师目光作用: 基于眼动的证据. 中国电化教育, 404, 22-29.
[8]	杨九民, 章仪, 李丽, 皮忠玲. (2019). 教师引导行为与学习者先前知识水平对视频学习的交互影响. 中国电化教育, 390, 74-81.
[9]	Alpizar, D., Adesope, O. O., & Wong, R. M. (2020). A meta-analysis of signaling principle in multimedia learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2095-2119. doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09748-7 URL
[10]	Beege, M., Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Rey, G. D. (2019). Social entities in educational videos: combining the effects of addressing and professionalism. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 40-52. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.051
[11]	Beege, M., Schneider, S., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Look into my eyes! Exploring the effect of addressing in educational videos. Learning and Instruction, 49, 113-120. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.004 URL
[12]	Bilek, E., Ruf, M., Schäfer, A., Akdeniz, C., Calhoun, V. D., Schmahl, C.,... Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2015). Information flow between interacting human brains: Identification, validation, and relationship to social expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(16), 5207-5212. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421831112 URL
[13]	Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2007). The questionable benefits of pedagogical agents: Response to Veletsianos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 379-381. doi: 10.2190/2781-3471-67MG-5033 URL
[14]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717-741. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9 URL
[15]	Fiorella, L., Stull, A. T., Kuhlmann, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Instructor presence in video lectures: The role of dynamic drawings, eye contact, and instructor visibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1162-1171. doi: 10.1037/edu0000325
[16]	Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students' and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001 URL
[17]	Hirsch, J., Zhang, X., Noah, J. A., & Ono, Y. (2017). Frontal temporal and parietal systems synchronize within and across brains during live eye-to-eye contact. NeuroImage, 157, 314-330. doi: S1053-8119(17)30487-1 pmid: 28619652
[18]	Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 172-176. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.013 URL
[19]	Kizilcec, R. F., Bailenson, J. N., & Gomez, C. J. (2015). The instructor’s face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 724-739. doi: 10.1037/edu0000013 URL
[20]	Kostorz, K., Flanagin, V. L., & Glasauer, S. (2020). Synchronization between instructor and observer when learning a complex bimanual skill. NeuroImage, 216, 116659. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116659 URL
[21]	Liu, J., Zhang, R., Geng, B., Zhang, T., Yuan, D., Otani, S., & Li, X. (2019). Interplay between prior knowledge and communication mode on teaching effectiveness: Interpersonal neural synchronization as a neural marker. NeuroImage, 193, 93-102. doi: S1053-8119(19)30171-5 pmid: 30851445
[22]	Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2019). Getting the point: Which kinds of gestures by pedagogical agents improve multimedia learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1382-1395. doi: 10.1037/edu0000352 URL
[23]	Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 167-171. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012 URL
[24]	Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2 ed., pp. 345-368). Cambridge University Press.
[25]	Mayer, R. E. (2017). How can brain research inform academic learning and instruction? Educational Psychology Review. 29(7), 835-846. doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9391-1 URL
[26]	Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[27]	Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239-252. doi: 10.1037/a0028616 URL
[28]	Nguyen, M., Chang, A., Micciche, E., Meshulam, M., Nastase, S. A., & Hasson, U. (2020). Teacher-student neural coupling during teaching and learning. BioRxiv, 17(4), 367-376.
[29]	Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2015). Designing effective video-based modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 78-88.
[30]	Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 URL
[31]	Pan, Y., Novembre, G., Song, B., Li, X., & Hu, Y. (2018). Interpersonal synchronization of inferior frontal cortices tracks social interactive learning of a song. NeuroImage, 183, 280-290. doi: S1053-8119(18)30692-X pmid: 30086411
[32]	Pi, Z., Chen, M., Zhu, F., Yang, J., & Hu, W. (2022). Modulation of instructor’s eye gaze by facial expression in video lectures. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(1), 15-23. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2020.1788410 URL
[33]	Pi, Z., Xu, K., Liu, C., & Yang, J. (2020). Instructor presence in video lectures: Eye gaze matters, but not body orientation. Computers & Education, 144, 103713. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103713 URL
[34]	Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, F., Chen, L., Guo, X., & Yang, J. (2021). The mutual influence of an instructor’s eye gaze and facial expression in video lectures. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080 /10494820.2021.1940213
[35]	Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, F., Xu, K., Yang, J., & Hu, W. (2019). Instructors’ pointing gestures improve learning regardless of their use of directed gaze in video lectures. Computers & Education, 128, 345-352. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.006 URL
[36]	Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1-39. doi: 10.2190/EC.49.1.a URL
[37]	Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Academic Press.
[38]	van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95-99. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.009 URL
[39]	van Gog, T., Verveer, I., & Verveer, L. (2014). Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model's face. Computers & Education, 72, 323-327. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.004 URL
[40]	van Wermeskerken, M., Grimmius, B., & van Gog, T. (2018). Attention to the model's face when learning from video modeling examples in adolescents with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 32-41. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12211 URL
[41]	van Wermeskerken, M., & van Gog, T. (2017). Seeing the instructor’s face and gaze in demonstration video examples affects attention allocation but not learning. Computers & Education, 113, 98-107. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.013 URL
[42]	Wang, F., Li, W., & Zhao, T. (2022). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 450-460). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.rog/10.1017/9781108894333.047.
[43]	Wang, H., Pi, Z., & Hu, W. (2019). The instructor’s gaze guidance in video lectures improves learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 42-50. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12309 URL
[44]	Wang, J., Antonenko, P., Keil, A., & Dawson, K. (2020). Converging subjective and psychophysiological measures of cognitive load to study the effects of instructor-present video. Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(3), 279-291. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12239 URL
[45]	Wass, S. V., Whitehorn, M., Marriot Haresign, I., Phillips, E., & Leong, V. (2020). Interpersonal neural entrainment during early social interaction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(4), 329-342. doi: S1364-6613(20)30024-3 pmid: 32160569

研究	样本量	实验操纵	实验材料	内在感知	注意分配	学习效果
李文静, 2019, Exp3	62	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (引导手势 vs 无手势)	化学突触传递知识	CL^& (0.18)	FT (-0.52), FC (0.41), FF(-0.4)	R (0.44), T (0.43)
匡子翌, 2020, Exp2	131	(引导注视vs直接注视) × (具体引导手势 vs 一般引导手势 vs 无手势)	化学突触传递知识	PSI (0.04), CL (-0.03)	FT (0.14), FF (-0.03), FC (0.08)	R (-0.11), T(-0.04)
王红艳等, 2018	56	(引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 引导手势) × (程序性知识 vs 陈述性知识)	Photoshop 知识	CL^& (-1.17)	FT^*(1.65)	S (0.81), P^*(1.32)
杨九民等, 2019	99	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (引导手势 vs 无手势) × (高经验学生 vs 低经验学生)	生物繁殖与克隆	/	FT^&(-0.03), FF(-0.15)	R (0.13), T(-0.09)
杨九民等, 2020	160	持续引导注视 vs 间断引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 回避注视 vs 无注视	风的知识	PSI^*(1.61), ME (0.03)	FT^*& (-0.05)	R^(0.49), T^(0.75)
Fiorella et al., 2019	62	引导注视 vs 直接注视	肾脏的工作原理	/	/	R (0.28), T^&(-0.66)
Ouwehand et al., 2015	34	引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 引导注视+引导手势	问题解决样例	ME (-0.15)	FT(0.19)	R (0.18), T(-0.09)
Pi et al., 2019	60	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (引导手势 vs 无手势)	生物繁殖与克隆	/	FT(0.32), FF^& (-0.71)	R (0.19), T(0.24)
Pi et al., 2020	174	(引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (身体正对 vs 身体侧对)	风的知识	/	FT^*(0.5)	R^(0.77), T^(0.81)
Pi et al, 2021	54	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (中性表情 vs 惊讶表情)	地震知识	PSI (0.04)	FT^&(-0.02), FF^&(0.13)	U^&(-0.21)
van Gog et al., 2014	25	引导注视 vs 无注视	问题解决样例	/	FT(0.43)	R^* (0.76), T(0.39)
van Wermeskerken & van Gog, 2017	69	引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 无注视	问题解决样例	/	FT^&(-2.03)	U (-0.07)
van Wermeskerken et al., 2018	158	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (正常学生vs 自闭症学生)	问题解决样例	/	FT^&(-1.75)	U (0.35)
Wang et al., 2019	58	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (程序性知识 vs 陈述性知识)	Photoshop 知识	/	FT^*(1.57)	S^(1.81), P^(1.36)

研究	样本量	实验操纵	实验材料	内在感知	注意分配	学习效果
李文静, 2019, Exp3	62	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (引导手势 vs 无手势)	化学突触传递知识	CL^& (0.18)	FT (-0.52), FC (0.41), FF(-0.4)	R (0.44), T (0.43)
匡子翌, 2020, Exp2	131	(引导注视vs直接注视) × (具体引导手势 vs 一般引导手势 vs 无手势)	化学突触传递知识	PSI (0.04), CL (-0.03)	FT (0.14), FF (-0.03), FC (0.08)	R (-0.11), T(-0.04)
王红艳等, 2018	56	(引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 引导手势) × (程序性知识 vs 陈述性知识)	Photoshop 知识	CL^& (-1.17)	FT^*(1.65)	S (0.81), P^*(1.32)
杨九民等, 2019	99	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (引导手势 vs 无手势) × (高经验学生 vs 低经验学生)	生物繁殖与克隆	/	FT^&(-0.03), FF(-0.15)	R (0.13), T(-0.09)
杨九民等, 2020	160	持续引导注视 vs 间断引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 回避注视 vs 无注视	风的知识	PSI^*(1.61), ME (0.03)	FT^*& (-0.05)	R^(0.49), T^(0.75)
Fiorella et al., 2019	62	引导注视 vs 直接注视	肾脏的工作原理	/	/	R (0.28), T^&(-0.66)
Ouwehand et al., 2015	34	引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 引导注视+引导手势	问题解决样例	ME (-0.15)	FT(0.19)	R (0.18), T(-0.09)
Pi et al., 2019	60	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (引导手势 vs 无手势)	生物繁殖与克隆	/	FT(0.32), FF^& (-0.71)	R (0.19), T(0.24)
Pi et al., 2020	174	(引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (身体正对 vs 身体侧对)	风的知识	/	FT^*(0.5)	R^(0.77), T^(0.81)
Pi et al, 2021	54	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (中性表情 vs 惊讶表情)	地震知识	PSI (0.04)	FT^&(-0.02), FF^&(0.13)	U^&(-0.21)
van Gog et al., 2014	25	引导注视 vs 无注视	问题解决样例	/	FT(0.43)	R^* (0.76), T(0.39)
van Wermeskerken & van Gog, 2017	69	引导注视 vs 直接注视 vs 无注视	问题解决样例	/	FT^&(-2.03)	U (-0.07)
van Wermeskerken et al., 2018	158	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (正常学生vs 自闭症学生)	问题解决样例	/	FT^&(-1.75)	U (0.35)
Wang et al., 2019	58	(引导注视 vs 直接注视) × (程序性知识 vs 陈述性知识)	Photoshop 知识	/	FT^*(1.57)	S^(1.81), P^(1.36)

研究	样本量	实验操纵	实验材料	内在感知	注意分配	学习效果
匡子翌, 2020, Exp1	69	身体正对直接注视 vs 身体侧对直接注视 vs 身体侧对回避注视	精神分裂症知识	PSI (0.38)	/	R^(0.74), T^(0.55)
杨九民等, 2020	96	直接注视 vs 回避注视vs 无注视	风的知识	PSI^*(1.21), ME (0.24)	FT^*&(-0.14)	R (0.23), T(0.41)
陈闽楠, 2020, exp2	129	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (积极表情 vs 中性表情)	地球知识	PSI^*(0.35), CL (0.19)	/	U^*(0.37)
Beege et al., 2017	88	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (近距离 vs 远距离)	统计学	PSI^*(0.52)	/	R^*(0.78), T(0.35)
Beege et al., 2019, Exp1	73	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (服装专业 vs 服装非专业)	医学	PSI (0.2), CL (-0.02)	/	R^(0.4), T^(0.5)
Beege et al., 2019, Exp2	99	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (服装专业 vs 服装非专业)	医学	PSI^*(0.34), CL^&(-0.2)	/	R^(0.41), T^(0.18)
Pi et al., 2020	116	直接注视 vs 回避注视	风的知识	/	FT(-0.31)	R (0.42), T^*(0.42)
Pi et al., 2022	120	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (积极表情 vs 中性表情)	地球知识	/	FT^&(0.5)	U^*(0.3)
van Wermeskerken & van Gog, 2017	39	直接注视 vs 无注视	问题解决样例	/	/	U (-0.32)

研究	样本量	实验操纵	实验材料	内在感知	注意分配	学习效果
匡子翌, 2020, Exp1	69	身体正对直接注视 vs 身体侧对直接注视 vs 身体侧对回避注视	精神分裂症知识	PSI (0.38)	/	R^(0.74), T^(0.55)
杨九民等, 2020	96	直接注视 vs 回避注视vs 无注视	风的知识	PSI^*(1.21), ME (0.24)	FT^*&(-0.14)	R (0.23), T(0.41)
陈闽楠, 2020, exp2	129	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (积极表情 vs 中性表情)	地球知识	PSI^*(0.35), CL (0.19)	/	U^*(0.37)
Beege et al., 2017	88	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (近距离 vs 远距离)	统计学	PSI^*(0.52)	/	R^*(0.78), T(0.35)
Beege et al., 2019, Exp1	73	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (服装专业 vs 服装非专业)	医学	PSI (0.2), CL (-0.02)	/	R^(0.4), T^(0.5)
Beege et al., 2019, Exp2	99	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (服装专业 vs 服装非专业)	医学	PSI^*(0.34), CL^&(-0.2)	/	R^(0.41), T^(0.18)
Pi et al., 2020	116	直接注视 vs 回避注视	风的知识	/	FT(-0.31)	R (0.42), T^*(0.42)
Pi et al., 2022	120	(直接注视 vs 回避注视) × (积极表情 vs 中性表情)	地球知识	/	FT^&(0.5)	U^*(0.3)
van Wermeskerken & van Gog, 2017	39	直接注视 vs 无注视	问题解决样例	/	/	U (-0.32)