Eye Tracking as a Tool for Evaluating Electronic Presentations by Russian and Foreign Students

DOI: 10.15293/1812-9463.2204.10

УДК 37.013.77

Marianna Yu. Ababkova

Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University (LETI), Saint Petersburg, Russia

Natalya K. Rozova

Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russia

AbstractEye tracking research involved into educational process yields objective visualized data on the compliance of product, interface or content with the goals and objectives of users. The mechanisms of controlling visual attention, interest and cognitive load are of importance in pedagogical research based on eye tracking. The article discusses the results of pilot study to understand the perception of electronic presentations by Russian and foreign students based on eye tracking technique. A total of 10 respondents took part in the study, the purpose was to test eye tracking as tool for evaluating and tailoring the textual and visual parts of presentation. The hypothesis of the study about the difference in the strategies of studying presentations for Russian and foreign students was confirmed. Gaze plots, heat maps and total viewing time as result of the study render the main strategies of students’ interaction with the electronic presentations’ content. The data provides the educational practitioners with the insights on honing the educational content to different categories of students. It is recommended to carry out further research to study the multimodal stimuli of static and dynamic presentations in the process of perception of lecture material.

Keywordspedagogical research, eye tracking, educational content, digital text reading strategies.

For CitationAbabkova M. Yu., Rozova N. K. Eye Tracking as a Tool for Evaluating Electronic Presentations by Russian and Foreign Students. Journal of Pedagogical Innovations, 2022, no. 4 (68), pp. 106–121. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/1812-9463.2204.10

References

1. Bakanov A. S. A model of decision-making true/false based on an experimental study of the eyes’ trajectory. Eyetracking in psychological science and practice / Ed.
V. A. Barabanshchikov. Moscow: Kogito-Center Publ., 2016, pp. 134–140. (In Russian)

2. Beltikova D. A., Tarasov D. A., Tyagunov A. G. Font intelligibility of electronic media using an eytracker. Information: transmission, processing, perception: materials of the international scientific and practical conference (Yekaterinburg, January 12–13, 2016). Yekaterinburg: Publishing house of the Ural State University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin, pp. 112–116. (In Russian)

3. Bulatova E. V., Alekseeva A. S., Lomtatidze O. V. Experimental methods of perception analysis of creolized media texts. Eyetracking in psychological science and practice / Ed. V. A. Barabanshchikov. Moscow: Kogito-Center Publ., 2016, pp. 228–233 p. (In Russian)

4. Veselovskaya T. S. Features of the study of digital educational texts. Scientific notes of Petrozavodsk State University, 2022, vol. 44, issue 1, pp. 56–62. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15393/uchz.art. 2022.718

5. Galimova E. G. Pedagogical effectiveness of computer presentation in the conditions of a university lecture. Education and self-development, 2010, no. 5 (21), pp. 67–71.
(In Russian)

6. Garipova A. B. Eyetracking in the methodology of teaching reading in English. Kazan Linguistic Journal, 2018, vol. 1, issue 2, pp. 86–94. (In Russian)

7. Eremenko Yu. A., Zalata O. A. Psychophysiological approaches to the design of educational content in an immersive environment. Questions of education, 2020, no. 4,
pp. 207–231. (In Russian)

8. Zapesotskaya I. V., Kuznetsova A. A. Hardware methods in objectification of data on the informative content of electronic educational products. Proceedings of the Southwestern State University. Series Linguistics and Pedagogy, 2018, vol. 8, issue 4, pp. 214–221.
(In Russian)

9. Kloktunova N. A., Solovyova V. A., Barsukova M. I., Kuzmin A.M. The study of cognitive processes of students in the search for educational information on the screen. Prospects of science and education, 2019, no. 3 (39), pp. 326–340. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2019.3.25

10. Kokanova E. S. Translation from a sheet and eyetracking. Language. Culture. Communication, 2018, no. 21, pp. 103–108. (In Russian)

11. Krotkova O. A., Danilov G. V., Kaverina M. Yu., Kuleva A. Yu., Gavrilova E. V., Enikolopova E. V. The volume of visual attention in normal aging: an eye tracking study. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 14. Psychology, 2018, no. 1, pp. 21–36.
(In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.11621/vsp.2018.01.21

12. Krylova M. N. Multimedia presentation for the lesson: problems of preparation and application [Electronic resource]. Facets of cognition, 2015, no. 8 (42), pp. 32–40. URL: http://grani.vspu.ru/files/publics/1449488569.pdf (date of access: 21.08.2022). (In Russian)

13. Lyaginov N. M. Design-ergonomic requirements for the presentation of educational purposes. Modern information technologies. Theory and practice: materials of the
III All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference, edited by T. O. Petrova. Cherepovets: Publishing House of the Cherepovets State University, 2017, pp. 193‒197. (In Russian)

14. Obzhorin A. M. Analysis of the 15 best presentations in the world: criteria of mastery. Meteor City, 2016, no. 4, pp. 16‒35. (In Russian)

15. Oganov S. R., Kornev A. N. Saccades as an indicator of the strategy of analysis of a written text: reading a scientific text by students of 2–4 courses. Eyetracking in psychological science and practice / Ed. V. A. Barabanshchikov. Moscow: Kogito-Center Publ., 2016, pp. 212–220. (In Russian)

16. Polyanin A. R., Korotun S. N. Methods of using presentations at lectures at
a university: modern discourse. Domestic and foreign pedagogy, 2017, vol. 1, issue 4 (41), pp. 172–184. (In Russian)

17. Rozova N. K., Tanova A. G., Ababkova M. Yu. Eyetracking methodology for assessing the perception of the main page of the university website. Modern high-tech technologies, 2022, no. 3, pp. 174–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17513/snt.39094 (In Russian)

18. Savchenko V. F. Evaluation of the quality of educational multimedia presentation. 11th scientific and practical conference of the teaching staff of the VPI (branch) VolgSTU (Volzhsky, January 27–28, 2012): collection of conference materials. Volgograd, 2012,
pp. 309‒311. (In Russian)

19. Fedorova O. V., Kibrik A. A., Yazyk S. A. Prospects for the use of eyetracker glasses in cognitive research of multimodality. Eyetracking in psychological science and practice / Ed. V. A. Barabanshchikov. Moscow: Kogito-Center Publ., 2016, pp. 79–86. (in Russian)

20. Tsylova E. G., Ekgauz E. Ya. Presentation as an instrument of influence on the perception and motivation of the listener. New educational technologies in higher education: collection of materials of the eighth international scientific and methodological conference (Ekaterinburg, February 2–4, 2011). Yekaterinburg: Publishing house of the Ural State University, 2011, pp. 177‒181. (In Russian)

21. Schwartz A. Yu., Chumachenko D. V., Krichevets A. N. Features of theoretical perception of visual mathematical material and mechanisms of their occurrence. Eyetracking in psychological science and practice / Ed. V. A. Barabanshchikov. Moscow: Kogito-Center Publ., 2016, pp. 117–127. (In Russian)

22. Shurupova M. A., Krasnoperov A.V., Tereshchenko L. V., Latanov A.V. The influence of cognitive tasks on the parameters of eye movements when viewing static and dynamic scenes. Eytracking in psychological science and practice / Ed. V. A. Barabanshchikov. Moscow: Kogito-Center Publ., 2016, pp. 202–212. (In Russian)

23. Yarosh O. B. Visual neuromarketing: measurement methods and metrics. Scientific notes of the V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Biology. Chemistry, 2020, vol. 6 (72), issue 1, pp. 240–250. (In Russian)

24. Ackerman R., Lauterman T. Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012, no. 28 (5), pp. 1816–1828.

25. Argyle M. Bodily Communication. United Kingdom: Routledge, 1993, 384 р.

26. Chen G., Cheng W., Chang T., Zheng X., Huang R. A comparison of reading comprehension across paper, computer screens, and tablets: Does tablet familiarity matter? Journal of Computers in Education, 2014, vol. 1, pp. 213–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0012-z

27. Coiro J., Dobler E. Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 2007, no. 42 (2), pp. 214–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2

28. Holmqvist K., Nyström M., Andersson R., Dewhurst R., Jarodzka H., van de Weijer J. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.

29. Hyona J., Lorch R. F., Rinck M. Eye movement measures to study global text processing. The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research, 2003, pp. 313–334.

30. Jeong H. A comparative study of scores on computer-based tests and paper-based tests. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2014, no. 33 (4), pp. 410–422.

31. Li J. Development and validation of second language online reading strategies inventory. Computers & Education, 2020, vol. 145, issue 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103733

32. Muñoz-Leiva F., Hernández-Méndez J., Gómez-Carmona D. Measuring advertising effectiveness in Travel 2.0 websites through eye-tracking technology. Physiology & Behavior, 2019, no. 200, pp. 83–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.03.002

33. O’Rourke B., Stickler U. Synchronous communication technologies for language learning: Promise and challenges in research and pedagogy. Language Learning in Higher Education, 2017, no. 7 (1), pp. 1–20.

34. Paolazzi С. L., Grillo N., Cera C., Karageorgou F., Bullman E., Chow W. Y., Santi A. Eyetracking while reading passives: an event structure account of difficulty. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2021, vol. 37, issue 2, pp. 135–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1946108

35. Penttinen M., Anto E., Mikkila-Erdmann M. Conceptual change, text comprehension and eye movements during reading. Research in Science Education, 2013, vol. 43, issue 4, pp. 1407–1434.

36. Pernice K. F-Shaped Pattern of Reading on the Web: Misunderstood, But Still Relevant (Even on Mobile) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/ (date of access: 21.08.2022).

37. Pernice K., Nielsen Y. How to Conduct Eyetracking Studies [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nngroup.com/reports/how-to-conduct-eyetracking-studies/ (date of access: 21.08.2022).

38. Poole A., Ball L. J., Phillips P. In Search of Salience: A Response-Time and Eye-Movement Analysis of Bookmark Recognition. In: S. Fincher, P. Markopolous, D. Moore,
R. Ruddle (eds) People and Computers XVIII – Design for Life: Proceedings of HCI 2004. London: Springer-Verlag Ltd, 2004, pр. 363–378.

39. Rayner Ch. S. Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2006, vol. 10, issue 3, pp. 241–255.

40. Renshaw J. A., Finlay J. E., Tyfa D., Ward R. D. Understanding Visual Influence in Graph Design through Temporal and Spatial Eye Movement Characteristics. Interacting with Computers, 2004, vol. 16, issue 3, pр. 557–558.

41. Shelton J. T., Christopher E. A. A fresh pair of eyes on prospective memory monitoring. Memory & Cognition, 2016, vol. 44, issue 6, pp. 837–845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0601-3

42. Shi L., Stickler U. Eyetracking a meeting of minds: teachers’ and students’ joint attention during synchronous online language tutorials. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 2021, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 145–169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2021-2006

43. Steinmetz K. R. M., Kensinger E. A. The emotion-induced memory trade-off: more than an effect of overt attention? Memory & Cognition, 2013, vol. 41, issue 1, pp. 69–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0247-8

44. Thoermer A., Williams L. Using digital texts to promote fluent reading. The Reading Teacher, 2012, vol. 65, issue 7, pp. 441–445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01065

45. Vitu F., McConkie G. W. Regressive saccades and word perception in adult reading. Reading as a perceptual process. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, 2000,
pp. 301–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50015-2

46. Wedel M., Pieters R. Eye tracking for visual marketing. Found. Trend. Market, 2008, vol. 1, issue 4, pp. 231–320. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1700000011

Information about the Authors

Marianna Yu. Ababkova – Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Public Relations, Humanitarian Institute, Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI”, Saint Petersburg, Russia, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6589-8523, miuababkova@etu.ru

Natalya K. Rozova – Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Higher School of Media Communications and Public Relations, Humanitarian Institute, Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russia, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7403-7912, nkroz@yandex.ru