Propiedades de los Materiales Utilizados

7.1.1. Research Question 1: What is Expert Teacher Gaze?

Do expert and novice teachers show different gaze patterns in the classroom, regardless of culture? That is, are there teacher gaze patterns that could be marks of universal expertise? Universal expert teacher gaze would be found when experts use significantly more (or less) of a particular gaze pattern than novices in the sample overall. Additionally, a teacher gaze pattern would be universal if experts in each cultural group both significantly differ from their novices—in the same way (e.g., both UK and Hong Kong experts use more eye contact than their respective novices).

Frequency Hypothesis 1: Expertise was expected to yield differential gaze priorities, given that it has done so in past vision literature (e.g., Reingold et al., 2001). Specifically, experts would direct a greater proportion of their gaze—attentional and communicative—towards pedagogically important areas gaze targets, whereas novices’ gaze proportions should reveal their lack of knowledge and misplaced pedagogical priorities.

Temporal Hypothesis 1: Experts will focus more on important classroom regions, namely students (e.g., Wolff et al., in press.), as shown by longer gaze durations towards students, greater gaze efficiency (i.e., focusing on classroom-relevant gaze types), greater gaze flexibility to respond to the classroom situation, and more consistent gaze strategies among experts than novices.

Scanpath Hypothesis 1a: To demonstrate the relevance of scanpath theory—and comparisons—to teacher scanpaths, I made intra- and inter-individual scanpath

expected teacher scanpaths to be significantly more similar when they are compared within each individual than when comparisons are made across teachers (or individuals).

Scanpath Hypothesis 1b: Scanpaths of expert teachers should reflect significantly different (i.e., more developed) experiences to that of novice teachers. Expert teachers should therefore be more similar among themselves than when compared with novice teachers.

7.1.2. Research Question 2: What is Cultural Teacher Gaze?

Do teachers from Hong Kong and the UK display different gaze patterns? These gaze patterns would be prevalent in one cultural group (e.g., Hong Kong), but non- significant in the other (e.g., the UK). A cultural teacher gaze pattern would be found is one cultural group uses significantly more (or less) of a gaze pattern than the other cultural group. A cultural pattern would also be found if both experts and novices in one cultural group differ from their counterparts in the other cultural group—in the same way (e.g., both the experts and novices in the UK use more eye contact than their counterparts in Hong Kong).

Frequency Hypothesis 2: Culture was expected to yield differential gaze priorities, in accordance with differing priorities across cultures in teaching (e.g., Hofstede, 1986) and in vision—with differences in attentional holism (e.g., Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005) and communicated friendliness of eye contact (e.g., Akechi et al., 2013). Together, Hong Kong teachers were expected to use lower proportions of student gaze than UK teachers. Temporal Hypothesis 2: Compared with UK teachers, Hong Kong teachers were expected to show shorter gaze durations towards students, different efficient gaze types, greater gaze flexibility, and greater strategic consistency.

Scanpath Hypothesis 2: Teacher scanpaths should reflect significantly different cognitive models of classroom scenarios. Scanpaths should therefore be more similar when compared within cultures than when they are compared across cultural settings.

7.1.3. Research Question 3: What is Culture-Specific Expert Teacher Gaze?

Do expert teachers in Hong Kong and the UK display different gaze patterns? That is, which gaze patterns are predicted by a significant interaction between expertise and culture? Alternatively, which gaze patterns are significantly more prevalent among expert teachers in one cultural group than those in the other cultural group? Otherwise, which gaze patterns are significantly different between experts and novices in one cultural group, but non-significant in the other cultural group?

Frequency Hypothesis 3: Expertise in teacher gaze was expected to be culture- specific. Since student-oriented gaze and eye contact are less prevalent in East Asian attention (e.g., Miellet et al., 2013) and more related to negative messages in East Asian communication(e.g., Akechi et al., 2013), using less student gaze and more non-student gaze (e.g., teacher material gaze) might be East Asian signs of teacher expertise. In contrast, Western European expertise should be characterised simply by greater quantities of student gaze.

Temporal Hypothesis 3: Experts in differing cultures will diverge in what they regard to be important classroom regions to look at during attentional gaze (Hofstede, 1986; Norenzayan et al., 2002). Cultures will also differ in how they communicate with their gaze (Akechi et al., 2013). Moreover, cultural differences in task performance and vision will extend into the classroom (e.g., Imbo & Le Fevre, 2009). As such, teachers— especially experts—will differ across cultures in where they look at more, in the gaze

types that are treated as more efficient (or relevant), in the gaze flexibility (i.e., rate of gaze transitions), and in how consistent their gaze strategy is.

Scanpath Hypothesis 3: The culture-specific nature of teacher expertise should be reflected in the way scanpaths of teachers within the same expertise and cultural group should be significantly more similar than those of teachers in different expertise and cultural group.

7.1.4. Research Question 4: How does Teacher Gaze Relate to Teacher Interpersonal Style?

How much does teacher gaze predict interpersonal style in addition to teacher expertise, culture and the expertise × culture interaction? Expert teachers are documented to show stronger interpersonal style (i.e., student-centredness) compared with novices (Wolff et al., 2014; van den Bogert et al., 2014). Yet, cultures differ in their optimal interpersonal styles, with East Asians giving lower importance to teacher–student relationships (Neuliep, 1997) and attributing learning benefits to ‘healthy’ classroom hostility (Li, 2002, 2003). On top of expertise and culture, teacher gaze is likely to play a role due to the connection between eye contact and emotional experiences (e.g., Adams & Kleck, 2005) and person perception (Einav & Hood, 2008).

Hypothesis 1: Given that teacher expertise has corresponded to effective

interpersonal classroom behaviour in the past (e.g., McCroskey et al., 1995), the present hypothesis was that experts would use significantly different gaze to novices—in correspondence with the experts’ more developed interpersonal style.

Hypothesis 2: Given that culture has been associated with different

Kim, 2008), the present analysis was expected to yield culture-specific interpersonal gaze in correspondence with culturally diverse interpersonal styles.

Hypothesis 3: Given that research has related teacher gaze with interpersonal dimensions (e.g., Wirth et al., 2010), the present expectation was that measures of teacher gaze will be significantly associated with interpersonal measures (i.e., interpersonal style, agency, communion).