Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of the Instructor’s Eye Gaze on Student Learning from Video Lectures: Evidence from Two Three-Level Meta-Analyses

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The instructor’s eye gaze can serve as an important social cue in video lectures. The current study used two sets of three-level meta-analyses to explore the effects of the instructor’s guided gaze or the instructor’s direct gaze on learning outcomes, fixation time, perception of parasocial interaction, and cognitive load. A total of eight meta-analyses [2(eye gazes)×4(dependent variables)] were included. Eighteen studies with a total of 203 effect sizes were identified. The results showed that guided gaze significantly promoted learning outcomes [g = 0.33; guided gaze vs. no guided gaze (i.e., direct gaze, averted gaze, or no gaze)], and direct gaze significantly promoted learning outcomes [g = 0.30; direct gaze vs. no direct gaze (i.e., averted gaze or no gaze)], significantly increased perception of parasocial interaction (g = 0.34), and significantly reduced fixation time on the learning material (g = -0.65). Moderating effect analyses showed that learning outcomes of fixed guided gaze (g = 0.57; instructors look at the instructional screen) were significantly better than that of shifting guided gaze (g = 0.27; instructors switch their eye gaze between the instructional screen and camera). Learning outcome effects with a control group with averted gaze (g = 0.76) were significantly higher than those with direct gaze (g = 0.32) or no gaze (g = 0.22). This study suggested that guided gaze and direct gaze have different effects on learning. In practical teaching, instructors should use guided gaze and direct gaze, while avoiding averted gaze and no gaze.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta analysis.

  • Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.004

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.051

  • Carlin, J. D., & Calder, A. J. (2013). The neural basis of eye gaze processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Alonso, J. C., de Koning, B. B., Fiorella, L., & Paas, F. (2021). Five strategies for optimizing instructional materials: Instructor-and learner-managed cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1379–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09606-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, M. (2020). The impact of instructor’s facial expressions and eye gaze on learners’ learning in instructional videos. (Master of Education). Central China Normal University.

  • Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. Chapman and Hall.

  • Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emhardt, S. N., Kok, E., van Gog, T., Brandt-Gruwel, S., van Marlen, T., & Jarodzka, H. (2023). Visualizing a task performer’s gaze to foster observers’ performance and learning—A systematic literature review on eye movement modeling examples. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09731-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Castilla, B., Declercq, L., Jamshidi, L., Beretvas, N., Onghena, P., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2020). Visual representations of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes: Extensions to forest plots, funnel plots, and caterpillar plots. Methodology, 16(4), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.4013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L. (2022). Multimedia learning with instructional video. In R. E. Mayer, & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 487–497). Cambridge University Press.

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000325

  • Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, S., Assink, M., Cipriani, A., & Lin, K. (2017). Associations between rejection sensitivity and mental health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 57, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J. E., & Brennan, S. E. (2007). Speakers’ eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 17, 1104–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic.

  • Henderson, M. L., & Schroeder, N. L. (2021). A systematic review of instructor presence in instructional videos: Effects on learning and affect. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. M., Williams, C. C., & Falk, R. J. (2005). Eye movements are functional during face learning. Memory & Cognition, 33(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observation on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610374586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janik, S. W., Wellens, A. R., Goldberg, M. L., & Dell’Osso, L. F. (1978). Eyes as the center of focus in the visual examination of human faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(3), 857–858. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.47.3.857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreysa, H., & Knoeferle, P. (2011). Effects of speaker gaze on spoken language comprehension: Task matters. In: L. Carlson, C. Hölscher & T.F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1557–1562). The Cognitive Science Society.

  • Kreysa, H., Nunnemann, E., & Knoeferle, P. (2018). Distinct effects of different visual cues on sentence comprehension and later recall: The case of speaker gaze versus depicted actions. Acta Psychologica, 188, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S. (2022). A systematic meta-analysis of the reliability and validity of subjective cognitive load questionnaires in experimental multimedia learning research. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2485–2541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kuang, Z. (2020). The impact of social cues on video learning: Based on eye gaze, body orientation, and gestures (Master of Education). Central China Normal University.

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merri€enboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research, 45, 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Li, W. (2019). The influence and mechanism of pedagogical agents on multimedia learning (Doctor of education). Central China Normal University.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.

  • Lüdecke, D., & Lüdecke, M. D.  & Calculator’ from David, B. W. (2019). Package ‘esc’. R Package Version 0.5, 1, 201.

  • Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2015). Designing effective video-modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 78–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2022). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer, & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 73–81). Cambridge University Press.

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.006

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103713

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297

  • *Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, F., Chen, L., Guo, X., & Yang, J. (2023). The mutual influence of an instructor’s eye gaze and facial expression in video lectures. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3664–3681. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1940213

  • Pritschet, L., Powell, D., & Horne, Z. (2016). Marginally significant effects as evidence for hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616645672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, J., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, M. A., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2021). Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological Methods, 26(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Schnaubert, L., & Rey, G. D. (2022a). The cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Krieglsteina, F., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022b). The impact of video lecturers’ nonverbal communication on learning – an experiment on gestures and facial expressions of pedagogical agents. Computers & Education, 176, 104350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46, 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A. T., Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). The case for embodied instruction: The instructor as a source of attentional and social cues in video lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(7), 1441–1453. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T. (2022). The signaling (or Cueing) Principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer, & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 221–230). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333.022

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.004

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.013

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12211

  • Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the meta for package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018a). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wang, H., Hu, W., Pi, Z., Ge, W., Xu, Y., & Fan, X. (2018b). Effects of the instructor’s behaviors on learning performance in teaching video lectures based on eye tracking. Journal of Distance Education, 36(5), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.15881/j.cnki.cn33-1304/g4.2018.05.013

  • *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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12309

  • Wei, J., Zhang, W., Feng, L., & Gao, W. (2017). Comparison of fertility-sparing treatments in patients with early endometrial cancer and atypical complex hyperplasia: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Medicine, 96(37), e8034. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. E., Martinez, M., Mills, C., D’Mello, S., Smilek, D., & Risko, E. F. (2018). Instructor presence effect: Liking does not always lead to learning. Computers & Education, 122, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, H., Mayer, R. E., Wang, F., & Zhou, Z. (2019). Coordinating visual and auditory cueing in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yang, J., Zhang, Y., Li, L., & Pi, Z. (2019). The interaction of an instructor’s guided behaviors and learners’ prior knowledge in predicting learning from video. China Educational Technology, 390, 74–81.

  • *Yang, J., Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Xu, K., Yu, Q., & Huang, B. (2020). The tole of teachers’ eye gaze in instructional videos: An eye-tracking study. China Educational Technology, 404, 22–29.

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant (# 62277025, 61937001), and the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (#21YJC190018).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China

    Ziyi Kuang, Fuxing Wang & Xiangen Hu

  2. School of Studies in Fundamental Education, South China Normal University, Shanwei, China

    Heping Xie

  3. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Richard E. Mayer

  4. Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hongkong, China

    Xiangen Hu

Authors
  1. Ziyi Kuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fuxing Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heping Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard E. Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiangen Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fuxing Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest in the research reported.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 202 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuang, Z., Wang, F., Xie, H. et al. Effect of the Instructor’s Eye Gaze on Student Learning from Video Lectures: Evidence from Two Three-Level Meta-Analyses. Educ Psychol Rev 35, 109 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09820-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09820-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation