|Appears in Collections:||Psychology Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Gaze Aversion During Children's Transient Knowledge and Learning|
Phelps, Fiona G
Problem-solving in children
Performance in children Psychological aspects
Interpersonal communication in children
Face perception Psychological aspects
|Citation:||Doherty-Sneddon G, Phelps FG & Calderwood L (2009) Gaze Aversion During Children's Transient Knowledge and Learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27 (3), pp. 225-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000903014329|
|Abstract:||Looking away from an interlocutor’s face during demanding cognitive activity can help adults and children answer challenging mental arithmetic and verbal-reasoning questions (Glenberg, Schroeder, & Robertson, 1998; Phelps, Doherty-Sneddon, & Warnock, 2006). While such “gaze aversion” (GA) is used far less by 5-year old school children, its use increases dramatically during the first years of primary education, reaching adult levels by 8-years of age (Doherty-Sneddon, Bruce, Bonner, Longbotham, & Doyle, 2002). Furthermore GA increases with increasing mental demands, with high levels signalling that an individual finds material being discussed challenging but remains engaged with it (Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002; Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps, 2006). In the current study we investigate whether patterns of gaze and gaze aversion during children’s explanations can predict when they are in states of transient knowledge (Karmiloff-Smith 1992; Goldin-Meadow, Kim, & Singer, 1999). In Study 1, fifty-nine 6-year-olds took part and completed a “Time Task” along with periodic teaching intervention to improve their comprehension of telling the time. Some children improved immediately, whereas others did so more gradually. The gradual improvers showed the highest levels of GA, particularly when they were at an intermediate level of performance. In Study 2, thirty-three 6-year-old children completed a balance beam task (Pine & Messer, 2000). Children who improved the representational level of their explanations (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992) of this task with training used more GA than those who did not. Practical implications for teaching and for recognizing transient knowledge states are discussed.|
|Rights:||Published in Cognition and Instruction by Taylor & Francis (Routledge).; This is an electronic version of an article published in Cognition and Instruction, Volume 27, Issue 3, July 2009, pp. 225 - 238. Cognition and Instruction is available online at: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=0737-0008&volume=27&issue=3&spage=225|
|Doherty_CI_0329-08-Final-b1.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||128.9 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.