The goal of this study is to model the effect of language use and time pressure on English as a first language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) students by measuring their eye movements in an on-screen, self-directed learning environment.
Background
Online learning is becoming integrated into learners’ daily lives due to the flexibility in scheduling and location that it offers. However, in many cases, the online learners often have no interaction with one another or their instructors, making it difficult to determine how the learners are reading the materials and whether they are learning effectively. Furthermore, online learning may pose challenges to those who face language barriers or are under time pressure.
Method
The effects of two factors, language use (EFL vs. ESL) and time constraints (high vs. low time pressure), were investigated during the presentation of online materials. The effects were analyzed based on eye movement measures (eye fixation rate—the total number of eye fixations divided by the task duration and gaze entropy) and behavioral measures (correct rate and task completion time).
Results
The results show that the ESL students had higher eye fixation rates and longer task completion times than the EFL students. Moreover, high time pressure resulted in high fixation rates, short task completion time, low correct rates, and high gaze entropy.
Conclusion and Application
The results suggest the possibility of using unobtrusive eye movement measures to develop ways to better assist those who struggle with learning in the online environment.
AndersonN. J. (2004). Metacognitive reading strategy awareness of ESL and EFL learners. The CATESOL Journal, 16, 11–27.
3.
AndrzejewskaM.StolińskaA. (2016). Comparing the difficulty of tasks using eye tracking combined with subjective and behavioural criteria. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 9, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.9.3.3
4.
BacksR. W.WalrathL. C. (1992). Eye movement and pupillary response indices of mental workload during visual search of symbolic displays. Applied Ergonomics, 23, 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(92)90152-L
5.
BaxS. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye-tracking. Language Testing, 30, 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212473244
6.
BertramR.HelleL.KaakinenJ. K.SvedströmE. (2013). The effect of expertise on eye movement behaviour in medical image perception. PloS one, 8, e66169. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066169
7.
CalderwoodR.KleinG. A.CrandallB. W. (1988). Time pressure, skill, and move quality in chess. The American Journal of Psychology, 101, 481–493. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423226
8.
ChanijaniS. S. M.KleinP.BukhariS. S.KuhnJ.DengelA. (2016). Entropy based transition analysis of eye movement on physics representational competence[Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct,1027–1034.
9.
ChizmarJ. F.WalbertM. S. (1999). Web-based learning environments guided by principles of good teaching practice. The Journal of Economic Education, 30, 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220489909595985
10.
ChouI.-C. (2012). Understanding on-screen reading behaviors in academic contexts: A case study of five graduate English-as-a-second-language students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.597768
D’AnielloG.GaetaA.GaetaM.TomasielloS. (2018). Self-regulated learning with approximate reasoning and situation awareness. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 9, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-016-0423-y
13.
D’AnielloG.GaetaA.LoiaV.OrciuoliF. (2016). Integrating GSO and SAW ontologies to enable situation awareness in green fleet management. [Conference session]. 2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA),138–144.
14.
EcksteinM. K.Guerra-CarrilloB.Miller SingleyA. T.BungeS. A. (2017). Beyond eye gaze: What else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development?Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.001
15.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
16.
EurichA. C. (1933). The reliability and validity of photographic eye-movement records. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071126
17.
EysenckM. W.CalvoM. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 409–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208409696
18.
FerrariJ. R. (2001). Procrastination as self‐regulation failure of performance: effects of cognitive load, self‐awareness, and time limits on ‘working best under pressure’. European Journal of Personality, 15, 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.413
19.
FosterT. E.ArdoinS. P.BinderK. S. (2018). Reliability and validity of eye movement measures of children’s reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 53, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.182
20.
FranzoniA. L.AssarS. (2009). Student learning styles adaptation method based on teaching strategies and electronic media. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 15–29.
21.
FutchO. (1934). The reliability and validity of photographic eye-movement records in the reading of Latin. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 620–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073657
22.
GegenfurtnerA.LehtinenE.SäljöR. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 523–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9174-7
23.
GodfroidA.BoersF.HousenA. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 483–517.
24.
HahnM.LawsonR.LeeY. G. (1992). The effects of time pressure and information load on decision quality. Psychology and Marketing, 9, 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220090503
25.
HaoQ.SbertM.MaL. (2019). Gaze information channel in cognitive comprehension of poster reading. Entropy, 21, 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21050444
26.
HollimanN. S.ColtekinA.FernstadS. J.SimpsonM. D.WilsonK. J.WoodsA. J. (2019). Visual entropy and the visualization of uncertainty. arXiv:1907, 12879.
27.
HoogeI.CampsG. (2013). Scan path entropy and arrow plots: Capturing scanning behavior of multiple observers. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00996
JarodzkaH.ScheiterK.GerjetsP.Van GogT. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019
31.
JeongH.KangZ.LiuY. (2019). Driver glance behaviors and scanning patterns: Applying static and dynamic glance measures to the analysis of curve driving with secondary tasks. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 29, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20798
32.
JungI.LatchemC. (2011). A model for e-education: Extended teaching spaces and extended learning spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00987.x
KangH. (2014). Understanding online reading through the eyes of first and second language readers: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 73, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.005
35.
KangZ.LandryS. J. (2014). Using scanpaths as a learning method for a conflict detection task of multiple target tracking. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56, 1150–1162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814523066
36.
KimJ.-E.NembhardD. A. (2019). Eye movement as a mediator of the relationships among time pressure, feedback, and learning performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 70, 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.12.006
37.
KinchinI. M. (2006). Developing PowerPoint handouts to support meaningful learning. BJET, 37, 647–650.
38.
KocherM. G.SutterM. (2006). Time is money—Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.11.013
KrejtzK.DuchowskiA. T.KrejtzI.KopaczA.Chrząstowski-WachtelP. (2016). Gaze transitions when learning with multimedia. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 9, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.9.1.5
LenznerT.KaczmirekL.GalesicM. (2011). Seeing through the eyes of the respondent: An eye-tracking study on survey question comprehension. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq053
43.
LiuX.LiuS.LeeS. H.MagjukaR. J. (2010). Cultural differences in online learning: International student perceptions. Journal of educational technology & society, 13, 177–188.
44.
MaadM. R. B. (2008). Time pressure and within-task variation in EFL oral performance. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5, 5–12.
45.
MacKayD. J. C. (2003). Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
46.
MandalS.KangZ. (2018). Using eye movement data visualization to enhance training of air traffic controllers: A dynamic network approach. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 11, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.11.4.1
47.
MarquardtN. (2019). Situation awareness, human error, and organizational learning in sociotechnical systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 29, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20790
48.
MauleA. J.HockeyG. R.BdzolaL. (2000). Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychologica, 104, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00033-0
McLoughlinC. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross‐cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22, 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220102
52.
MeredithJ. R.Mantel JrS. J. (2011). Project management: A managerial approach: A managerial approach. Wiley Global Education.
53.
MolinaR.RedondoB.VeraJ.GarcíaJ. A.Muñoz-HoyosA.JiménezR. (2020). Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder show an altered eye movement pattern during reading. Optometry and Vision Science, 97, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001498
54.
MuilenburgL. Y.BergeZ. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26, 29–48.
55.
O’DonnellE.LawlessS.SharpM.WadeV. P. (2015). A review of personalised e-learning: Towards supporting learner diversity. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 13, 22–47.
56.
ParkinsonC. N.OsbornR. C. (1957). Parkinson’s law, and other studies in administration. (Vol. 24). Houghton Mifflin.
57.
PayneJ. W.PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press.
58.
PetridesL. A. (2002). Web-Based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 69–77.
59.
PietersR.WarlopL. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00022-6
60.
PooleD. M. (2000). Student participation in a Discussion-Oriented online course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2000.10782307
61.
PrytzE. G.NorénC.JonsonC.-O. (2018). Fixation differences in visual search of accident scenes by novices and expert emergency responders. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60, 1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818788142
62.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
63.
RaynerK.ChaceK. H.SlatteryT. J.AshbyJ. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3
64.
SchieberF.GillandJ. (2008). Visual entropy metric reveals differences in ’drivers’ eye gaze complexity across variations in age and subsidiary task load. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 52, 1883–1887. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805202311
65.
SchirnerG.ErdogmusD.ChowdhuryK.PadirT. (2013). The future of Human-in-the-Loop Cyber-Physical systems. Computer, 46, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.31
66.
Schmidt-WeigandF.KohnertA.GlowallaU. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011
67.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
68.
SchmiedtováB. (2011). Do L2 speakers think in the L1 when speaking in the L2?Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 138–179.
69.
SharminS.pakovO.RäihäK. J.JakobsenA. L. (2008). Effects of time pressure and text complexity on translators' fixations. Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/1344471.1344503
70.
ShiferawB.DowneyL.CrewtherD. (2019). A review of gaze entropy as a measure of visual scanning efficiency. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.007
71.
ShiferawB. A.DowneyL. A.WestlakeJ.StevensB.RajaratnamS. M. W.BerlowitzD. J.SwannP.HowardM. E. (2018). Stationary gaze entropy predicts lane departure events in Sleep-Deprived drivers. Scientific Reports, 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20588-7
72.
SongL.SingletonE. S.HillJ. R.KohM. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 59–70.
73.
TinkerM. A. (1933). Use and limitations of eye-movement measures of reading. Psychological Review, 40, 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074534
74.
TinkerM. A. (1936). Reliability and validity of eye-movement measures of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060561
75.
Van GogT.PaasF.Van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2005). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1112
van HerpenE.TrijpH. C. Mvan.Van TrijpH. C. (2011). Front-of-pack nutrition labels. their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite, 57, 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.011
Wilson Van VoorhisC. R.MorganB. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043
