While methods associated with community-engaged research have traditionally included surveys, interviews, workshops, and stakeholder feedback, this article argues that the affordances of eye tracking make it a strong candidate for use in community research contexts. Because eye tracking is grounded in experiential metrics that describe—rather than prescribe—how participants engage with multimodal work, the method encourages genuine engagement with written and visual materials, inviting the experience of a broad range of participants. Using examples of eye tracking data collected as part of three previous community research initiatives, I argue that eye tracking can bolster community-engaged research by (a) reflecting a multiplicity of reader experiences, (b) revealing how design choices impact cognitive load, and (c) fostering reflection on strengthening community engagement. While eye tracking has often been used in educational and academic settings, community-engaged research projects offer an opportunity to expand the impact of the method, benefiting the work of researchers, writers, and designers as well as the communities they serve.
AnsonC. M.SchweglerR. A. (2012). Tracking the mind’s eye: A new technology for researching twenty-first-century writing and reading processes.College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 151–71.
2.
BezemerJ.KressG. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.
3.
BrayN. (2019). How do online news genres take up knowledge claims from a scientific research article on climate change?Written Communication, 36(1), 155–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804822
ChristiansenM. S. (2017). Creating a unique transnational place: Deterritorialized discourse and the blending of time and space in online social media. Written Communication, 34(2), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317693996
6.
ConijnR.SpeltzE. D.ZaanenM.Van WaesL.Chukharev-HudilainenE. (2022). A product- and process-oriented tagset for revisions in writing. Written Communication, 39(1), 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211052104
7.
de SmetM. J. R.LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2018). Exploring the process of reading during writing using eye tracking and keystroke logging. Written Communication, 35(4), 411–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318788070
8.
DeansT. (2007). Shifting locations, genres, and motives: An activity theory analysis of service-learning writing pedagogies. In KellerC. J.WeisserC. R. (Eds.), The locations of composition (pp. 289–306). New York Press.
9.
DeJonckheereM.Lindquist-GrantzR.ToramanS.HaddadK.VaughnL. M. (2019). Intersection of mixed methods and community-based participatory research: A methodological review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818778469
10.
FlowerL. (2008). Community literacy and the rhetoric of public engagement (1st ed.). Southern Illinois University Press.
11.
FraibergS. (2010). Composition 2.0: Toward a multilingual and multimodal framework. College Composition and Communication, 62(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201011661
12.
GoodwinP. (2020). Embodied subjectivities and the city: Intervening in local public debates through multimodality. College Composition and Communication, 72(2), 224–250. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc202031036
13.
GrabillJ. T. (2012). Community-based research and the importance of a research stance. In NickosonL.SheridanM. P. (Eds.), Writing studies research in practice: Methods and methodologies (pp. 210–219). Southern Illinois University Press.
14.
HeggliA.HatchettB.TolbyZ.LambrechtK.CollinsM.OlmanL.JeglumM. (2023). Visual communication of probabilistic information to enhance decision support template for pi visualizations. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7999820
15.
HultdinU. W.NorqvistM. (2024). Students’ reception of two alternative arrangements of mathematical symbols and words: Differences in focus and text navigation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 75, Article 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2024.101159
16.
JonassenD. H. (1982). The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text. Educational Technology Publications.
17.
KampermanS. (2024). Gateways and anchor points: The use of frames to amplify marginalized voices in disability policy deliberations. Written Communication, 41(3), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883241242109
18.
KingA. J.BolN.CumminsR. G.JohnK. K. (2019). Improving visual behavior research in communication science: An overview, review, and reporting recommendations for using eye-tracking methods. Communication Methods and Measures, 13(3), 149–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1558194
19.
LauerC.SanchezC. A. (2023). What eye tracking can show us about how people are influenced by deceptive tactics in line graphs. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 66(3), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2023.3290948
20.
LecknerS. (2012). Presentation factors affecting reading behaviour in readers of newspaper media: an eye-tracking perspective. Visual Communication, 11(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357211434029
21.
LindenmanH. (2022). Theorizing writing differently: How community-engaged projects in first-year composition shape students’ writing theories and strategies. College Composition and Communication, 74(1), 84–112. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc202232121
22.
LundahlM. (2022). Writing in nature-based settings: participant experiences in a literacy and leadership development program. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00003-5
23.
MajooniA.MasoodM.AkhavanA. (2018). An eye-tracking study on the effect of infographic structures on viewer’s comprehension and cognitive load. Information Visualization, 17(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871617701971
MysoreP.LambrechtK. (2026). Visualizing heat risk: Infographics, memorability, and design. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 1-25. https://doi.org.10.1177/00472816261437723
26.
PluzyczkaM. (2018). The first hundred years: A history of eye tracking as a research method. Applied Linguistics Papers, 25(4), 101–116.
27.
PonceH. R.MayerR. E. (2014). An eye movement analysis of highlighting and graphic organizer study aids for learning from expository text. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.010
28.
StarkL.BrünkenR.ParkB. (2018). Emotional text design in multimedia learning: A mixed-methods study using eye tracking. Computers and Education, 120, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.003
29.
ThamJ.JiangJ. (2024). Understanding writing instructors’ feelings toward the affordances of multimodal social advocacy projects: Implications for service-learning pedagogies. College Composition and Communication, 76(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc20247614
VasudevanL.SchultzK.BatemanJ. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310378217
32.
VieiraK. (2011). Undocumented in a documentary society: Textual borders and transnational religious literacies. Written Communication, 28(4), 436–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311421468
33.
WalshL. (2019). A zero-sum politics of identification: A topological analysis of wildlife advocacy rhetoric in the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction project. Written Communication, 36(3), 437–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319842566
