Interlocutors and Interactions: Examining the Interactions Between Students With Complex Communication Needs, Teachers, and Eye-Gaze Technology

Abstract

This study analyzes the role of the machine as a communicative partner for children with complex communication needs as they use eye-tracking technology to communicate. We ask: to what extent do eye-tracking devices serve as functional communications systems for children with complex communication needs? We followed 12 children with profound physical disabilities in a special education classroom over 3 months. An eye-tracking system was used to collect data from software that assisted the children in facial recognition, task identification, and vocabulary building. Results show that eye gaze served as a functional communication system for the majority of the children. We found voice affect to be a strong determinant of communicative success between students and both of their communicative partners: the teachers (humans) and the technologies (machines).

User Experiences of Eye Gaze Classroom Technology for Children With Complex Communication Needs

“…In this study, we explore how eye tracking systems can affect user interactions in a naturalistic special education setting. This paper is situated within a larger study that explored a number of characteristics typical of technology-mediated communication in educational settings, which relate to key issues around the system type, verbal interaction style, and familiarity of the communication partner (McEwen et al, 2020). This paper focuses on the relationship between eye tracking system types and user interactions in an eye gaze technology-mediated communication activity.…”

“…Among the latest developments, high-tech AACs such as tablets; speech-generating devices; and mobile devices (Still et al, 2014) are increasingly studied as an intervention strategy in support of individuals with complex communication needs, such as those with Rett syndrome, cerebral palsy, or seizure disorder (McEwen et al, 2020; Gilroy et al, 2017; Nepo et al, 2015; Rispoli et al, 2010). While some technologies, like switch access scanning, afford the user the ability to independently select letters or words using a wrist or hand-controlled input device to move a cursor on a screen, knowledge of the alphabet and the ability to read are requirements.…”

“…This paper focuses on the relationship between eye tracking system types and user interactions in an eye gaze technology-mediated communication activity. Drawing from Luhmann’s theory of communication (Luhmann, 1992) and expanded by McEwen et al, 2020, we framed communicative interaction as a triad (student-teacher-technology), rather than the traditional dyad (student-teacher), as such we considered all three participants as sources of data and units for analysis. We used session time as an indicator of positive engagement (Janssen et al, 2012), highlighting sustained communication as a key indicator of communicative interaction success.…”

İletişim Çalışmalarında İnsan-Makine İletişimi: Paradigma Değişikliği ve Temel Yaklaşımlar

“…HMC focuses on the creation of meaning between humans and machines. Technology is considered not only as a mediation tool but as an active participant in communication (McEwen et al, 2020;Lewis et al 2019;Guzman, 2018;Guzman, 2019;Guzman, 2020). For this purpose, HMC asks what happens when a machine takes on the human role.…”