Early Childhood Education and Care Teachers’ Gaze Behavior Across Pedagogical Episodes in Toddler Groups in Finland

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Early Childhood Education and Care Teachers’ Gaze Behavior Across Pedagogical Episodes in Toddler Groups in Finland © The Author(s) 2024 Published version Isotalo, Susanna; Ukkonen-Mikkola, Tuulikki; Lämsä, Joni; Rutanen, Niina Isotalo, S., Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., Lämsä, J., & Rutanen, N. (2024). Early Childhood Education and Care Teachers’ Gaze Behavior Across Pedagogical Episodes in Toddler Groups in Finland. International Journal of Early Childhood, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-02300387-6 2024 Vol.:(0123456789) International Journal of Early Childhood https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-023-00387-6 1 3 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior Across Pedagogical Episodes inToddler Groups inFinland SusannaIsotalo1 · TuulikkiUkkonen‑Mikkola1 · JoniLämsä2 · NiinaRutanen1 Accepted: 16 December 2023 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Teacher–child interaction is central in pedagogical activities in early childhood education and care (ECEC). In these activities, teachers’ visual gaze is a valuable tool for communication, but this has received little attention in ECEC research. Recent technological advancements in eye-tracking provide an approach to take a deeper look at how teachers focus their visual gaze during activities. Our study focused on three ECEC teachers’ visual gaze behavior during pedagogical activities in a group of children under three years of age (later toddlers) in Finland, to gain understanding of how teachers use their gaze to facilitate interactions and pedagogy. The data were collected using eye-tracking glasses in two types of activities: play and guided activity. From these eye-tracking recordings, we identified pedagogical episodes (e.g., guidance). To analyze teachers’ visual gaze behavior, we also coded the fixations to the different areas of interest (e.g., teaching materials). The findings showed that the teachers’ aim for interaction with children was associated with their visual gaze behavior on teacherand child-initiated episodes. Moreover, the activity’s structure and the teacher’s position also played a role in how teachers focus their visual gaze. In this article, we also discuss the potential of eye-tracking technology in reflection of practices implemented in ECEC and we argue that the use of eye-tracking technology is an area that merits further exploration. * Susanna Isotalo [email protected] Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola tuulikki.t.ukk[email protected] Joni Lämsä [email protected] Niina Rutanen niina.a.r[email protected] 1 Department ofEducation, University ofJyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland 2 Learning andEducational Technology (LET) Research Lab, University ofOulu, Oulu, Finland S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 Keywords Toddlers· Pedagogical activities· Interaction· Teacher’s gaze· Eyetracking Résumé L’interaction enseignant-enfant est au coeur des activités pédagogiques d’éducation et d’accueil de la petite enfance (ECEC). Dans ces activités, le regard visuel des enseignants est un outil de communication précieux, mais cela a reçu peu d’attention dans la recherche sur l’ECEC. Notre étude s’est concentrée sur le comportement du regard visuel de trois enseignants d’ECEC lors d’activités pédagogiques dans un groupe d’enfants de moins de trois ans (plus tard des tout-petits) en Finlande, afin de comprendre comment les enseignants utilisent leur regard pour faciliter les interactions et la pédagogie. Les données ont été collectées à l’aide de lunettes de suivi oculaire dans deux types d’activités : le jeu et l’activité guidée. À partir de ces enregistrements de suivi oculaire, nous avons identifié des épisodes pédagogiques (par exemple, l’orientation). Pour analyser le comportement du regard visuel des enseignants, nous avons également codé les fixations sur les différents domaines d’intérêt (par exemple, le matériel pédagogique). Les résultats ont montré que l’objectif d’interaction des enseignants avec les enfants était associé à leur comportement de regard visuel lors des épisodes initiés par l’enseignant et l’enfant. De plus, la structure de l’activité et la position de l’enseignant ont également joué un rôle dans la manière dont les enseignants focalisent leur regard visuel. Dans cet article, nous discutons également du potentiel de la technologie de suivi oculaire en fonction des pratiques mises en oeuvre dans les services d’éducation et d’accueil de la petite enfance et nous soutenons que l’utilisation de la technologie de suivi oculaire est un domaine qui mérite une exploration plus approfondie. Resumen La interacción maestro-niño es central en las actividades pedagógicas en educación y atención a la primera infancia (ECEC). En estas actividades, la mirada visual de los docentes es una valiosa herramienta de comunicación, pero ha recibido poca atención en la investigación de ECEC. Los avances tecnológicos recientes en el seguimiento ocular brindan un enfoque para observar más profundamente cómo los maestros enfocan su mirada visual durante las actividades. Nuestro estudio se centró en el comportamiento de la mirada visual de tres profesores de ECEC durante actividades pedagógicas en un grupo de niños menores de tres años (más tarde, niños pequeños) en Finlandia, para comprender cómo los profesores utilizan su mirada para facilitar las interacciones y la pedagogía. Los datos se recogieron mediante gafas de seguimiento ocular en dos tipos de actividades: juego y actividad guiada. A partir de estas grabaciones de seguimiento ocular, identificamos episodios pedagógicos (por ejemplo, orientación). Para analizar el comportamiento de la mirada visual de los profesores, también codificamos las fijaciones en las diferentes áreas de interés (por ejemplo, materiales didácticos). Los hallazgos mostraron que el objetivo de los maestros de interactuar con los niños estaba asociado con su comportamiento de mirada visual en los episodios iniciados por los maestros y los niños. Además, la estructura de la actividad y la posición del profesor también influyeron en cómo los profesores enfocan 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… su mirada visual. En este artículo, también discutimos el potencial de la tecnología de seguimiento ocular como reflejo de las prácticas implementadas en ECEC y sostenemos que el uso de la tecnología de seguimiento ocular es un área que merece una mayor exploración. Introduction Early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers are required to have the expertise necessary to provide individualized attention and support and align pedagogy for every child to support children’s individual development (Buysse etal., 2009; Mutiara etal., 2020). Interactional relationships are crucial to fulfilling the child’s basic need for attachment as well as to support the child’s communication skills and association experiences (Rautamies etal., 2018). Various research has been pursued to clarify factors that improve children’s well-being, growth, and development in ECEC (see Guedes etal., 2020; Thomason & La Paro, 2009), and these are usually linked to the quality of teacher–child interaction. In the ECEC field, interaction is an important part of teachers’ pedagogical expertise (Ukkonen-Mikkola & Fonsén, 2018), and teachers’ visual gaze has been shown in earlier studies as being related to maintaining meaningful interaction between the teacher and the child (Pfeiffer etal., 2013). Teacher–child interactions involve the aspects of emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support (Pianta etal., 2008). The teacher has an important impact on, for example, the development of children’s learning motivation and self-regulation skills (Pakarinen etal., 2010; Salminen etal., 2021), the fostering of students’ social and emotional functioning (Hamre etal., 2013), and the reduction of problem behavior (Curby etal., 2013). Hamre etal. (2013) suggested that the primary tool to promote developmental outputs is the quality of interaction between children and adults. Teachers’ visual gaze has proven to play a significant role in observing, predicting, and making decisions related to classroom situations (e.g., Tatler etal., 2014). In educational research, teachers’ visual gaze has been studied with new methodological and technological tools (see Goldberg etal., 2021; Jarodzka etal., 2017; McIntyre etal., 2022; Muhonen etal., 2020; Wolff etal., 2020), but the focus on visual gaze is a relatively new area on studies in the ECEC field (Sadamatsu, 2022). In school settings, eye-tracking technology have been earlier used to examine teachers’ visual gaze behavior related to their work experience (see Huang etal., 2021; van den Bogert etal., 2014), and distribution of visual focus of attention during teaching (see Chaudhuri etal., 2022; Dessus etal., 2016; Goldberg etal., 2021; Haataja etal., 2020; Keller etal., 2021). In previous research, infant–toddler pedagogies have received less interest than pedagogies with older children. However, the growing number of infants and toddlers participating in ECEC has increased the need for research related to pedagogy in these groups (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2019; Sumsion & Harrison, 2014). In this study, with eye-tracking technology, we explored ECEC teachers’ visual gaze behavior in teacher–child interactions during pedagogical activities in toddler groups in Finland. S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 Pedagogical Activities inECEC In the ECEC context, pedagogical activities are considered an important part of supporting children’s well-being, agency, and development of both their emotional functioning and learning skills. We have adopted Broström’s (2006) three dimensions of ECEC: care, upbringing, and teaching, which ECEC teachers can provide to children simultaneously. For example, the needs of individual children affectsthe intensity of the care dimension. These needsare evaluated based on silent reflection by the teacher, and from moment-to-moment teachers need to adapt their outputs on these dimensions (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017). Pedagogical activities performed in ECEC can be seen as a wide range of actions in which toddlers engage throughout the day (Guedes etal., 2020). Play and educational activities have been proven to support a child’s engagement in higher quality processes and to offer the best potential for the teacher to provide support for the child in learning and development as well as on an emotional level (Slot etal., 2016). In play, the teachers’ role is to observe children’s cues, aligning with children’s initiations, and to be emotionally available to support children’s contributions to play (Hakkarainen etal., 2013). Guided activities are seen as joint activities coconstituted by participants’ responsive actions (Wallerstedt etal., 2022) in which a child’s development of science-, language-, or math-oriented skills are supported. In this study, despite the slightly divergent functions of the teacher’s role in the activities, both guided activity and play are seen important parts of pedagogical activities in ECEC groups, which can include the aspects of care, upbringing, and teaching simultaneously. Teacher–Child Interactions duringPedagogical Activities Teachers need interaction-related expertise to perform pedagogical activities, share knowledge, support, and evaluate children during activities (Mutiara etal., 2020). By listening and considering children’s expressions and by sharing the same frame of reference in activities with consistency, the teacher enables children to develop their communication skills (Wallerstedt et al., 2022). Moreover, ECEC teachers need expertise to evaluate and support each child’s development individually. ECEC teachers’ expertise includes aspects of personal values and epistemologies, beliefs about learning and knowledge, and perceptions of the children (Lunn Browlee etal., 2016). In addition, ECEC teachers’ expertise is associated with planning, implementing, evaluating, and developing pedagogical activities (Kangas etal., 2015) and comprehensive understanding of the curriculum (Schachter etal., 2021). Many of these require interaction skills, and this way interaction also relates to teachers’ pedagogical expertise and classroom management skills (Hamre etal., 2013). A quality of teaching practices and teacher’s classroom management skills are associated with better self-control skills, higher on-task behavior, and levels of engagement in learning activities for children (Rimm-Kaufman etal., 2009), and these qualities relate to the cognitive, language, and social–emotional skills of children (Mashburn etal., 2008). 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… Moreover, teacher–child interaction in a classroom is vital to successfully perform teaching practices (Hamre etal., 2013). During the day, interactions and their quality vary across different activities. During free play and early academic skills activities, interaction was found to be of higher quality than, for example, during mealtimes (Guedes et al., 2020). High-quality interactions between teachers and young children have been associated with two key factors: teachers’ heightened sensitivity to children’s initiations and ability to effectively conduct the group. In the ECEC, most of the decisions about teacher–child interactions are made based on observation, facial expressions, bodily gestures, and tone of voice (Mofrad, 2012). Moreover, teachers’ visual gaze has proven to play a significant role in detecting and maintaining teacher–child interaction (Pfeiffer etal., 2013). Thus, teacher–child interaction is an important aspect of teachers’ expertise, where teachers’ gaze is linked to maintaining and evaluating communication and effective mentoring of the group. Teacher’s Gaze inPedagogical Activities Teachers use their visual gaze to improve their situational awareness by observing and detecting classroom events (Wolff etal., 2020), but also to signal and express intentions and support classroom interaction. If visual gaze is missing or moving, it can interrupt or even obstruct meaningful interaction episodes (Pfeiffer et al., 2013). The quality of interaction can have an influence on the teacher’s visual gaze behavior. For example, on a study conducted on first grade, it was found that more students receive visual attention during high-quality educational dialog than during moderate-quality dialog (Muhonen etal., 2020). Moreover, study implemented in secondary school showed that teachers increased eye contact with students when giving directions (Haataja etal., 2020). The teacher’s visual gaze also varies depending on what they would like to express. During questioning, teachers showed dominance by increasing eye contact with students and friendliness by increasing eye contact during lectures (McIntyre etal., 2020). Moreover, teachers can pay more visual attention to children who show more interactive or disruptive behavior (Goldberg etal., 2021) and to children who have challenges concentrating on tasks (Seidel etal., 2021). The results on a study of ECEC teachers’ visual gaze behavior related to teachers’ possible implicit biases revealed that race and sex of child can have influence on how teacher focus their visual gaze, by increasing teachers gaze especially toward Black boys, when they expect challenging behavior (Gilliam etal., 2016). In addition, during snack time, experienced ECEC professionals looked less at children’s faces than other areas (Ishibashi etal., 2020), and when monitoring play situations, the experienced teachers gazed atchildren more frequently but for shorter times (Sadamatsu, 2022). A study combining ECEC teachers’ visual gaze and their reflection of the activity showed that awareness of visual attention can help teachers to reflect their actions (Ukkonen-Mikkola etal., forthcoming). Kidwell and Reynolds (2022) studied gaze using conversational analysis (CA). According to their research, gaze is used as a distinct, tangible way of indicating to others that there is something interesting in their shared environment. In ECEC settings gaze can be used this way, for example, while teacher directs children’s attention in pedagogical S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 activities. Overall, when interpreting children’s behavior and providing guidance and support, visual gaze has a vital role. Despite the recent advancements in unobtrusive eye-tracking technologies, little is known about how ECEC teachers use their visual gaze when supporting interaction and children’s learning. Dividing Pedagogical Activities viaTeaching Dialog Patterns Teaching is strongly related to pedagogical activities, and language plays a significant role in combining the teaching, learning, and cognitive development of students (Min-Young & Wilkinson, 2019). Language in teaching can be defined through teaching dialog, wherein the teacher should provide students with a shared responsibility for discussion, ask questions, and provide feedback that will prompt further exploration (Reznitskaya etal., 2009). Teaching dialog also consists of considering students’ ideas and requesting explanations for them, supporting collaboration and collaborative interaction through exploratory talk, and paying attention to students’ questions (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). We are using Muhonen etal. (2016) approach to dialogic teaching patterns to explore teachers’ visual gaze behavior in more specific episodes during pedagogical activities. Muhonen etal. (2016) divided dialog into two sub-patterns: teacherinitiated and child-initiated patterns. In teacher-initiated patterns, teachers maintain and lead dialog, and in child-initiated patterns, they support children’s initiatives. Since in toddler groups, the teacher is seen as the primary facilitator for maintaining and supporting children’s interactions. Therefore, in this study, teaching dialogs are used to divide teachers’ verbal communication into episodes, while they are supporting young children’s verbal interaction. Moreover, we are using these diverse phases of pedagogical activities to study teacher’s visual gaze behavior. Aim oftheStudy andResearch Questions Our aim was to investigate teachers’ visual gaze behavior in pedagogical activities to gain a deeper understanding of the ways in which teachers use their visual gaze to facilitate interactions and pedagogy with toddlers. First, we aimed to identify the diverse types of episodes in pedagogical activities. Second, our aim was to explore visual gaze behavior in these episodes. We proposed the following research questions (RQs): RQ1. What kinds of pedagogical episodes can be identified from pedagogical activities in ECEC groups? RQ2. How does teachers’ gaze behavior appear in diverse types of pedagogical episodes? Method Participants, Data Collection, andData Three Finnish ECEC teachers participated, and the study was implemented in their small groups of children under three years of age. Participants were recruited trough 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… the cooperation networks of the University of Jyväskylä. All participants worked in the same ECEC center. The ECEC center leader and the teachers were informed of the study and their willingness to participate was inquired beforehand. When performing research practices especially with young children researchers need to ensure space for everyone to comment, to show their views and these need to be heard and considered (Rutanen etal., 2021). On this study, ethical considerations were carefully deliberated, and the study was submitted to review of the ethical board of the University ofJyväskylä. Moreover, a consent form and information sheet were provided to all participating teachers and children’s parents and assent to study was negotiated with the children involved before and during research. When children’s permission to collect data was acquired beforehand, participating teacher got the chance to test eye-tracking glasses in the presence of participating children. This was done to get participants familiar with the glasses and to minimize possible stress, anxiety or uncomfortable feelings regarding data collection and glasses. Participants were given the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time. During data collection, researchers were monitoring children’s bodily and verbal gestures. Researchers were ready to withdraw from the data collection if some child had shown verbal or non-verbal gestures of feeling uncomfortable in a situation (e.g., crying, hiding, squirming). In reporting the results, pseudonyms of participants have been used. The participating teachers had completed their bachelor’s degree in early childhood education. The participating teachers’ work experience was for Maria, one year three months, for Rose, two years three months, and for Joanna, four years. In the groups participating in the data collection, there were from two to four children at a time (Table1). In Maria’s case, the small group of children were the same in both of the data collection situations. In Joanna’s and Rose’s case, some children were present in both situations, but not all. There were in total nine children participating: five boys and four girls. The participating children’s ages ranged from 29 to 36months, with an average of 31months. Data were collected with Tobii Pro Glasses 2 (https:// www. tobii. com/) that are mobile and unobtrusive eye-tracking classes, allowing capturing participants’ eyemovement data in authentic environments. Eye-movement data include participants gaze fixations (period where visual gaze is relatively still), saccades (rapid eye movements between fixations) and blinks. In addition to the eye-movement data, these eye trackers record video and audio data of participants’ actions, enabling multimodal data analysis. For this study, we used only participants fixation data in terms of total duration of fixations. Total duration of fixations is defined as total amount of time that measured gaze is focusing on specific area of interest (AOI) (more information of eye-tracking technology: Holmqvist etal., 2015). Eye-tracking glasses were calibrated by the researcher and participating teacher before the recording using one-point calibration (Tobii Pro, 2023), and the calibration was verified with the three-set point technique (Muhonen etal., 2020). The data included two eye-tracking recordings from each participating teacher: one from play and one from guided activity. The teachers chose the content of the play and guided activities. Play activities consisted of elements from guided play, where the teacher chose timing of the activity and toys, and from free play, where the children were free to play S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 Table 1 Specific features of the guided and play activities Teacher Activity Specific features of space and organization of the activity Length of the recording Rose Guided activity, music 3 children, teacher sitting in front, children on their specific sitting platforms 15.31 Maria Guided activity, music 2 children, teacher sitting in front, children on their specific sitting platforms 12.10 Joanna Guided activity, fingerpaint art 2 children, children sitting around table, teacher moving 31.45 Rose Play activity, Legos 4 children, children sitting or moving around the table, teacher sitting on the floor, spacious room 16.18 Maria Play activity, magic sand, and molds 2 children, children and teacher around table, teacher sitting and children standing (table designed to be on children’s level) 32.02 Joanne Play activity, wooden train track, trains 2 children, children and teacher on a floor, teacher as assistant, children moving while building the train track 19.46 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… Teachers’ Gaze inChild‑Initiated Pedagogical Episodes Commonly inchild-initiated pedagogical episodes the teacher’s visual gaze moved between AOIs of the individual children and AOIs of teaching or playing materials. However,being in general more often on individual children. Figure4 of child-initiated enabling episodes shows that during play activities, teachers’ visual gaze was mostly on AOI of the playing materials. During guided activities, teachers’ visual focus of gaze was more on AOIs of the individual children than other AOIs. In all play activities and Joanna’s guided activity, the teacher was positioned sitting next to the children, and the focus of their visual gaze was mostly on playing or teaching materials (Fig.4). In these situations, the teacher’s visual gaze was more on what the child was showing or talking about, and the teacher showed engagement Fig. 3 Teachers’ gaze fixation duration percentages on specific AOIs in teacher-initiated safety episodes Fig. 4 Teachers’ gaze fixation duration percentages on specific AOIs in child-initiated enabling episodes S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 in the child’s interest by verbally acknowledging it and focusing their visual gaze on it. In the structured guided music activities of Rose and Maria, the position of the teacher in front of the children and fewer teaching materials being used in the activity increased the focus of visual gaze on individual children in the enabling episodes. Figure5 shows that in the child-initiated monitoring episodes in play activities, the teachers’ visual gaze was mostly on AOIs of the individual children. During guided activities, the teachers’ focus of visual gaze varied between AOIs of the individual children and the AOI of the teaching materials. In these episodes, teachers monitored with their visual gaze children who were distracted, and as shown in Fig.5, the teacher focused their visual gaze mostly on these children. In Maria’s play and Joanna’s guided activity, the teachers’ visual gaze was more on teaching or playing materials. In these situations, children were sitting around the table with the teacher, and even when they got distracted, they stayed relatively still. The teacher’s visual gaze was more on teaching or playing materials, when they tried to engage the child in the activity using their gaze. Moreover, the focus of teachers’ visual gaze on individual children was still quite consistent in these situations. Discussion With this study, we aimed to clarify teachers visual gaze behavior, while facilitating interactions and pedagogy with young children. This was studied during pedagogical activities in toddlers’ groups. First, we presented five pedagogical episode types identified from pedagogical activities: teacher-initiated guidance, safety, and invitation and child-initiated enabling and monitoring. These findings relate to teachers’ ability and need in ECEC activities to adapt their instructional approach to the teaching, care, and upbringing when supporting children individually (Rutanen Fig. 5 Teachers’ gaze fixation duration percentages on specific AOIs in child-initiated monitoring episodes (the missing column indicates that this episode type was not detected in this activity) 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… & Hännikäinen, 2017). In toddler groups, teacherand child-initiated episodes were almost as common, which is in line with earlier results in preschool settings, whereas in primary school, child initiations seemed to decrease (Muhonen etal., 2016). Active dialog between teachers and children can also be related to teachers’ expertise in supporting children’s participation and providing encouragement for their own initiatives (Salminen etal., 2021; Ukkonen-Mikkola & Fonsén, 2018). The findings also show a relationship between the activity’s structure and the teacher’s position in the construction of the pedagogical episodes. Also, teachers’ position in front of children in structured guided activities had relationship with child-initiated enabling and monitoring episodes. In these, the teachers’ focus was more on classroom organization and instructional support. The position of the teacher next to the children in play and not-so-structured guided activity increased teacher-initiated guidance and child-initiated enabling episodes. These findings are mostly in line with earlier studies where teacher–child interaction was shown to be higher quality in playand guided activities (Guedes etal., 2020). In addition,our findings suggest that highly structured activities in toddler groups might decrease active initiations fromthe children. Findings related to teachers’ visual gaze behavior showed that in all pedagogical episode types, teacher aims of interaction influence teachers’ focus on their visual gaze. The focus of a teacher’s visual gaze can also vary whether the episode is teacheror child-initiated. In general, in teacher-initiated episodes, the teachers’ visual gaze was more on teaching or playing materials. In teacher-initiated guidance episodes, teachers focused their visual gaze on what they wanted to show or express, in safety episodes, on whom they were giving instructions to, and in invitation episodes, on what they wished the child to concentrate. Also, in earlier studies, teachers were seen to provide guidance using their visual gaze (Haataja etal., 2020) and to influence actions in their environment (Tatler etal., 2014). Teachers focusing their visual gaze more on children in child-initiated episodes seem to second the aspect of teacher being sensitive toward children’s cues (see Wallerstedt etal., 2022). In enabling episodes, teachers focused their visual gaze on children to non-verbally support and encourage them to interact (see Muhonen etal., 2016). In monitoring episodes, the teachers focused their visual gaze on children who were distracted, which led the teachers to focus their gazes more on children who showed more disruptive behavior (Goldberg etal., 2021). If the teachers’ gaze moved more between teaching/playing materials to children in enabling episodes, the teachers visual gaze was on what the children’s initiation concerned, and in monitoring episodes, on what they wished children to focus on. Teachers engaged themselves in interaction and paid attention to what the children were initiating, and the focus of the teachers’ visual gaze supports this. Our findings on teachers’ visual gaze behavior, related to the structure of the activity and teachers’ position, show that the duration and what teachers focus their visual gaze on varies. Teachers’ position in front of children in structured guided activities increased teachers’ visual gaze toward children in almost all episode types, and this is in line with earlier studies where visual gaze was found to be linked to observing and detecting classroom events to improve teachers’ situational awareness (Wolff etal., 2020). An exception was teacher-initiated invitation episodes, where S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 the teachers’ visual gaze was more on the AOI of others. Invitation episodes are linked to the teacher inviting the child to join the activity when the child gets distracted. This finding contrasts with earlier studies in which teachers were found to focus their gaze more on children who had challenges concentrating on tasks (Seidel etal., 2021). Our study indicates that in structured activities when a child needs support on concentrating, teachers may steer the child’s focus with their visual gaze. This is doneby theteacher byfocusing their visual gaze on what themselves want the child to pay attention to, rather than focusing their visual gaze directly on the child. Limitations, Implications, andFuture Directions There are some limitations to this study. First, the data in this study were collected in authentic ECEC settings where children and the teacher could move freely during the data collection. This leads to some compromises in terms of the quality of the data since we could not control head movement, gaze angle, or lighting (see Tobii Pro, 2020). To maximize the utilization of data gained in data collection, AOIs were first visually recognized from recordings, then named and all fixations from the eyetracking video recordings were manually coded on to the selected AOIs. In addition, to minimize the influence of eye-tracking glasses on children’s and teachers’ behaviors, glasses were introduced to all participants beforehand. The second limitation is the small number of research participants. Therefore, generalized conclusions cannot be drawn from the results. Regardless of the limitations, this exploratory approach involving eye-tracking technology contributes to developing research methods and practices in studies in ECEC with toddlers. With eye-tracking technology, ECEC teacher’s visual gaze behavior can be explored in teacher–child interactions and this way gain understanding of the ways that teachers use their visual gaze to facilitate interactions and pedagogy with toddlers. In addition, this study offers better understanding of the role of teachers’ visual gaze behavior in pedagogical interaction in authentic ECEC settings and activities. Thus, this study contributes to the literature of eye-tracking research, often conducted in more structured settings like school classes and restricted learning tasks. By examining interaction with eye-tracking in pedagogical activities, we have gained knowledge of how teachers use their visual gaze to support, steer, and engage children in activities and interaction. This knowledge of teachers’ visual gaze behavior in interaction can be used and reflected with teachers in developing the ECEC practices. This study revealed several directions for future research. In future research, more focus could be directed to the teachers’ perceptions and reflections of their eyetracking data and decisions in pedagogical situations. Moreover, gaze data gained through eye-tracking gives more specific information about the focus of visual gaze than video recordings that are often used in interaction analysis. Hence, another future direction could be combining eye-tracking data with more detailed methodologies that focus on the process of interaction, such as conversation analysis (Kidwell & Reynolds, 2022). In addition, it is possible to utilize eye-tracking technology to 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… identify teachers’ visual gaze behaviors related to their years of work experience. In our study, participants were all quite recently started their ECEC career and collecting further data from teachers who have extended work experience would provide an excellent opportunity to study this phenomenon. Conclusions Our findings support the importance of teachers using their visual gaze for observing and supporting children’s interaction. With respect to implementing pedagogical actions, our findings suggest that teachers can use their visual gaze to show interest, support a child’s initiations, and engage children in activity. Additionally, our findings show that the structure of the activity and the teachers’ position may influence the incidence of different pedagogical episodes and teachers’ visual gaze behavior. For toddler groups in structured activities, the teacher may direct the child’s attention by focusing their visual gaze on what they want the child to pay attention to. Therefore, eye-tracking technology offers a methodological tool to study how teachers use their visual gaze in sensitive interactions to successfully engage children in pedagogical activities. Acknowledgements This study was supported by the University of Jyväskylä, Department of Education. We are grateful for all the ECEC teachers, children, families, and ECEC centers that participated. Author Contribution All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Susanna Isotalo and Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Susanna Isotalo and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Open Access funding provided by University of Jyväskylä (JYU). This study was funded by the University of Jyväskylä, Department of Education. Declarations Conflict of Interest The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Ethical Approval Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the University of Jyväskylä. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from participating teachers and legal guardians of the children. The children’s assent to participate in the study was negotiated with the children involved before and during research. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Broström, S. (2006). Care and education: Towards a new paradigm in early childhood education. Child & Youth Care Forum, 35, 391–409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105660069024-9 Buysse, V., Winton, P. J., & Rous, B. (2009). Reaching consensus on a definition of professional development for the early childhood field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(4), 235–243. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02711 21408 328173 Chaudhuri, S., Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2022). Teachers’ visual focus of attention in relation to students’ basic academic skills and teachers’ individual support for students: An eye-tracking study. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lindif. 2022. 102179 Curby, T. W., Brock, L. L., & Hamre, B. K. (2013). Teachers emotional support consistency predicts children’s achievement gains and social skills. Early Education & Development, 24(3), 292–309. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10409 289. 2012. 665760 Dessus, P., Cosnefroy, O., & Luengo, V. (2016). “Keep your eyes on ‘em all!”: A mobile eye-tracking analysis of teachers’ sensitivity to students. Adaptive and Adaptable Learning, 9891, 72–84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-331945153-4_6 Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do early educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions. Yale University Child Study Center, 9(28), 1–16. https:// www. jsums. edu/ schol ars/ files/ 2017/ 03/ Presc hoolImpli citBiasPolicyBrief_ final_9_ 26_ 276766_ 5379. pdf Goldberg, P., Schwerter, J., Seidel, T., Muller, K., & Sturmer, K. (2021). How does learners’ behavior attract preservice teachers’ attention during teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tate. 2020. 103213 Guedes, C., Cadima, J., Aguiar, T., Aguiar, C., & Barata, C. (2020). Activity settings in toddler classrooms and quality of group and individual interactions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 67, 101100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. appdev. 2019. 101100 Haataja, E., Salonen, V., Laine, A., Toivanen, M., & Hannula, M. S. (2020). The relation between teacher-student eye contact and teachers’ interpersonal behavior during group work: A multiple-person gaze-tracking case study in secondary mathematics education. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 57–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1064802009538-w Hakkarainen, P., Brėdikytė, M., Jakkula, K., & Munter, H. (2013). Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a narrative play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 213–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13502 93X. 2013. 789189 Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., & Jones, S. M. (2013). Teaching through interactions. Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 669616 Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & DeWeijer, J. (2015). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press. Huang, Y., Miller, K. F., Cortina, K. S., & Richter, D. (2021). Teachers’ professional vision in action: Comparing expert and novice teacher’s real-life eye movements in the classroom. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1024/ 10100652/ a0003 13 Ishibashi, M., Takahashi, M., & Nozawa, S. (2020). Relationship between ECEC (early childhood education and care) staff’s years of professional experience and gaze patterns: A study using wearable eye trackers. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 27(4), 540–553. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11225/ cs. 2020. 019 Jarodzka, H., Holmqvist, K., & Gruber, H. (2017). Eye tracking in educational science: Theoretical frameworks and research agendas. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 10(1), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 16910/ jemr. 10.1.3 Kangas, J., Ojala, M., & Venninen, T. (2015). Children’s self-regulation in the context of participatory pedagogy in early childhood education. Early Education and Development, 26(5–6), 847–870. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10409 289. 2015. 10394 34 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… Keller, L., Cortina, K. S., Müller, K., & Miller, K. F. (2021). Noticing and weighing alternatives in the reflection of regular classroom teaching: Evidence of expertise using mobile eye tracking. Instructional Science, 50, 1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1125102109570-5 Kidwell, M. & Reynolds, E. (2022). Gaze and the organization of participation in collective visual conduct. Social interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7146/ si. v5i2. 119332 Lämsä, J., Kotkajuuri, J., Lehtinen, A., Koskinen, P., Mäntylä, T., Kilpeläinen, J., Hämäläinen, R. (2022). The focus and timing of gaze matters: Investigating collaborative knowledge construction in a simulation-based environment by combined video and eye tracking. Frontiers in Education, 7 https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ feduc. 2022. 942224 Lunn Browlee, J., Schraw, G., Walker, S., & Ryan, M. (2016). Changes in preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies. In J. Greene, B. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 300–325). Routledge. Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Donna Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Early, D. M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732– 749. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 14678624. 2008. 01154.x McIntyre, N. A., Draycott, B., & Wolff, C. E. (2022). Keeping track of expert teachers: Comparing the affordances of think-aloud elicited by two different video perspectives. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101563. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. learn instr uc. 2021. 101563 McIntyre, N. A., Mulder, K. T., & Mainhard, T. M. (2020). Looking to relate: Teacher gaze and culture in student-rated teacher interpersonal behaviour. Social Psychology of Education, 23(2), 411–431. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1121801909541-2 Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 55–71). SAGE Publishing. Min-Young, K., & Wilkinson, I. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lcsi. 2019. 02. 003 Mofrad, S. (2012). Opportunity in early childhood education: Improving interaction and communication. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 241–246. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. 2012. 05. 100 Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M-K. (2022). Professional vision of Grade 1 teachers experiencing different levels of work-related stress. Teaching and Teacher Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tate. 2021. 103585 Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Rasku-Puttonen, H., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2020). Dialogue through eyes: Exploring teachers’ focus of attention during educational dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijer. 2020. 101607 Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2016). Scaffolding through dialogic teaching in early school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 143–154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tate. 2016. 01. 007 Mutiara, S., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2020). Analysis of kindergarten teachers on pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1701–1721. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12973/ eujer.9. 4. 1701 Pakarinen, E., Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2010). Classroom organization and teacher stress predicts learning motivation in kindergarten children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(3), 281–300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s102120100025-6 Pfeiffer, U. J., Vogeley, K., & Schilbach, L. (2013). From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: Novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 2516–2528. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. neubi orev. 2013. 07. 017 Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system™ (CLASS™) manual, Pre-K. Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co. Rautamies, E., Koivula, M., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2018). Lastentarhanopettaja lasten autonomian tukijana varhaiskasvatuksessa [Kindergarten teacher as supporter of children’s autonomy in early childhood education]. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 7(1), 53–75. https:// journ al. fi/ jecer/ artic le/ view/ 114085 S.Isotalo et al. 1 3 Reznitskaya, A., Kuob, L.-J., Clark, A.-M., & Millerd, B. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 29–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03057 64080 27019 52 Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 958–972. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0015 861 Rutanen, N. & Hännikäinen, M. (2017). Care, upbringing and teaching in ‘horizontal’ transitions in toddler day-care groups. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three-year-olds in policy and practice (pp. 57–72). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978981102275-3_4 Rutanen, N. & Hännikäinen, M. (2019). Finland: Becoming and the youngest children at home and in ECEC. In M. Gradovski, E. Ødegaard, N. Rutanen, J. Sumsion. C. Mika, C.& J. White (Eds.) The First 1000 days of early childhood. Policy and Pedagogy with Under-Three-Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations, 2 (pp. 93–108). Springer, Singapore. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978981329656-5_6 Rutanen, N., Raittila, R., Harju, K., Lucas Revilla, Y. & Hännikäinen, M. (2021). Negotiating Ethicsin-Action in a Long-term Research Relationship with a Young Child. Hu Arenas, 6(2), 386–403. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s4208702100216-z Sadamatsu, J. (2022). Experienced nursery teachers gaze longer at children during play than do novice teachers: An eye-tracking study. Asia Pacific Education Review. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1256402209818-w Salminen, J., Guedes, C., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Pakarinen, E., & Cadima, J. (2021). Teacher-child interaction quality and children’s self-regulation in toddler classrooms in Finland and Portugal. Infant and Child Development, 33(3), e2222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ icd. 2222 Schachter, R. E., Jiang, Q., Piasta, S. B., & Flynn, E. E. (2021). “We’re more than a daycare”: Reported roles and settings for early childhood professionals and implications for professionalizing the field. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 1183–1196. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1064302101252-8 Seidel, T., Schnitzler, K., Kosel, C., Stürmer, K., & Holzberger, D. (2021). Student characteristics in the eyes of teachers: Differences between novice and expert teachers in judgment accuracy, observed behavioral cues, and gaze. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 69–89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1064802009532-2 Slot, P. L., Cadima, J., Salminen, J., Pastori, G., Lerkkanen, M-K., & Leerstoel, L. (2016). Education and learning: Cognitive and motor disabilities. Multiple case study in seven European countries regarding culture-sensitive classroom quality assessment. EU CARE project. https:// dspace. libra ry. uu. nl/ handle/ 1874/ 342309 Sumsion, J., & Harrison, L. (Eds.). (2014). Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: Exploring diverse perspectives on theory, research, and practice. Springer. Tatler, B., Kirtley, C., Macdonald, R., Mitchell, K., & Savage, S. (2014). The active eye: Perspectives on eye movement research. In M. Horsley, M. Eliot, B. Knight, & R. Reilly (Eds.), Current trends in eye tracking research (pp. 3–16). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-331902868-2_1 Thomason, A. C., & La Paro, K. M. (2009). Measuring the quality of teacher–child interactions in toddler childcare. Early Education and Development, 20(2), 285–304. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10409 28090 27733 51 Tobii Pro, A. B. (2020). Field metrics test report: Accuracy, precision, and detected gaze during normal usage with 400+ participants. https:// www. tobii. com/ resou rcecenter/ dataquali ty Tobii Pro, A. B. (2023). Tobii pro glasses 2 user manual (v2.0.2). https:// conne ct. tobii. com/s/ g2downl oads? langu age= en_ US UkkonenMikkola, T & Fonsén, E. (2018). Researching Finnish Early Childhood Teachers’ Pedagogical Work Using Layder’s Research Map. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(4) 48–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 23965/ AJEC. 43.4. 06 van den Bogert, N., van Bruggen, J., Kostons, D., & Jochems, W. (2014). First steps into understanding teachers’ visual perception of classroom events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 208–216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tate. 2013. 09. 001 Wallerstedt, C., Lagerlöf, P., & Pramling, N. (2022). Teaching activities with toddlers: Considerations on theoretical and empirical grounds. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 19(3), 129–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 23865/ nbf. v19. 331 Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 104–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ mbe. 12015 1 3 Early Childhood Education andCare Teachers’ Gaze Behavior… Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2020). Classroom management scripts: A theoretical model contrasting expert and novice teachers’ knowledge and awareness of classroom events. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 131–148. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1064802009542-0 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.