What Is in the Eye and Mind of Early Childhood Professionals? A Mixed-Methods Study Using Eye-Tracking and Written Reflections to Investigate the Congruence Between Visual and Reflective Focus

Abstract

Professional reflection is key to the professionalization of pedagogical professionals. Using a mixed-methods design that combines eye-tracking methodology with retrospective written reflections, this study investigates the visual and reflective processes of early childhood professionals when interpreting video-recorded pedagogical situations. A remote eye-tracking device (Tobii Pro Fusion) was used to capture eye movements. Sixteen participants watched videos of pedagogical situations in a kindergarten while their eye movements were recorded to investigate their visual focus, followed by open-ended written reflections to investigate their reflective focus. Eye-tracking data revealed that participants focused predominantly on situational features and children’s actions, whereas written reflections mainly addressed the actions of both the children and the professionals. The triangulated data indicated partial congruence between visual and reflective focus, particularly regarding child-related aspects. These findings suggest that although situational features attract visual attention, reflective processes prioritize behavioral actions over environmental context. Eye-tracking and reflective data provide insights, emphasizing the importance of triangulating methods to gain a holistic understanding of professional reflection in early childhood education. This methodological approach holds promise for professional development and training in early childhood education, aiming to foster reflective practice and enhance professional vision.

1. Introduction

Professional reflection and professional vision both play important roles in the context of the professionalization of pedagogical professionals (Häcker, 2019; König et al., 2022). The concept of professional reflection is central to professional practice and professional development (e.g., Baumert & Kunter, 2006; Wyss & Mahler, 2021) and is considered a “prerequisite for professional action” (Blömeke et al., 2014 as cited by Kücholl & Lazarides, 2021, p. 989). Also central to pedagogical professionals’ professionalization is the concept of professional vision (cf., Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). Professional reflection is an eminent construct in research on pedagogical professionals‘ development and competencies (Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). As the professionalization of early childhood professionals receives increasing scholarly attention, professional reflection and professional vision have also become topics of growing interest in early childhood education research (Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014; Mischo et al., 2020). To date, little is known about what early childhood professionals visually focus and reflect on during pedagogical situations in the kindergarten. While the visual focus represents what professionals may have seen and focused on, the reflective focus reveals what they considered relevant and reflected upon. Gaining insights into this relationship is crucial, as it may reveal systematic discrepancies between visual and reflective focus that can influence pedagogical action. To address this gap, this article presents a mixed-methods approach using eye-tracking to study visual information processes and retrospective written reflections to shed light on the reflective processes of early childhood professionals.

1.1. Professional Reflection

Professional reflection has been widely investigated in theoretical and empirical ways (Lenske & Lohse-Bossenz, 2023; van Beveren et al., 2018), which converges on the perspective that reflection is, overall, highly important for learning processes and professional action (Häcker, 2019). It entails the process by which implicit knowledge, which is shown in the actions of pedagogical professionals, becomes explicit knowledge (Häcker, 2019). In the context of teacher education, reflection can contribute to the improvement of teaching practices by fostering critical thinking and integrating theory and practice. Reflection on practical pedagogical situations is necessary to understand complex situations such as classrooms, to analyze and reconsider actions taken, and to ultimately generate alternative and more adequate options for further actions (Clarà, 2015; Schön, 1983).

Lenske and Lohse-Bossenz (2023) define professional reflection in pedagogical contexts as “an event-related mental process that aims at a deeper understanding of pedagogical practice with explicit self-reference” (p. 1138). Furthermore, reflection can be differentiated into self-reflection (internal reflection), in which one’s own actions are reflected, and external reflection, which refers to actions from others (Weber et al., 2022). In both ways, perceiving pedagogical situations is central to reflective processes.

1.2. Videos as Event-Related Stimuli

Videos of pedagogical situations are a promising tool for initiating reflection, promoting specific skills of professional behavior, and assessing competencies (Blomberg et al., 2014; Sherin & van Es, 2009). Videos can be used as event-related stimuli because they allow the complexity of pedagogical settings to be illustrated in authentic, typical, or best-practice ways (Seidel & Thiel, 2017). By watching videos multiple times, a deeper understanding of the situation emerges, which results in a deeper level of reflection (Sherin & van Es, 2005). Previous research has shown the effectiveness of video-based training of oneself and videos from others in teaching and teacher education for professional vision (Hellermann et al., 2015; Kleinknecht & Poschinski, 2014; Kleinknecht & Gröschner, 2016).

1.3. Processes of Professional Reflection

According to a process-based perspective of reflection, such as the ALACT model (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), professional reflection can be described as a process comprising several sub-processes. These include identifying relevant information and events for learning and teaching on the one hand and ignoring irrelevant information on the other hand, interpreting and reasoning based on the noticed information, and ultimately drawing alternative actions for one’s profession (Weber et al., 2023). These sub-processes can be considered as a set of professional skills.

A comparable process-oriented framework can be found in the concept of professional vision, an eminent construct in research of pedagogical professionals’ development and competencies (cf., Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). Professional vision is conceptualized as comprising two core processes: noticing and knowledge-based reasoning. Noticing is defined as the ability to pay selective attention to relevant information for learning and teaching. Therefore, noticing encompasses the recognition and identification of relevant aspects of a pedagogical situation. It is influenced by dispositional aspects such as prior and existing knowledge as well as beliefs (Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). Furthermore, it is considered essential for professional action (Weber et al., 2018). Knowledge-based reasoning, on the other hand, describes the ability to interpret and evaluate the corresponding stimuli by incorporating existing knowledge about learning and teaching to draw appropriate conclusions. Reasoning can be further differentiated into the three dimensions of describing, explaining and predicting (Seidel & Stürmer, 2014).

When comparing the components of professional vision (Seidel & Stürmer, 2014) with the sub-processes of professional reflection (Weber et al., 2023), conceptual parallels become apparent (Kücholl & Lazarides, 2021). The initial process of reflection (i.e., identification of relevant information) is equivalent to the noticing process of professional vision. Similarly, the second process (i.e., interpreting) refers to knowledge-based reasoning. This aligns with a cognitive–psychological perspective of professional vision (König et al., 2022; Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). To sum up, both constructs share a process-based structure, particularly in the phases of noticing and reasoning. These parallels support the assumption that the perceptual processes involved in professional reflection are conceptually aligned with professional vision.

1.4. Phases and Content of Professional Reflection

Referring to the aforementioned proposed definition of professional reflection (Lenske & Lohse-Bossenz, 2023), reflection is event-related (meaning it is initiated by an event) and aims to clarify a situation. Furthermore, the mental process of professional reflection assumed by Lenske and Lohse-Bossenz (2023) is consistent with process-based models of reflection. Therefore, reflection can be defined as a cycle consisting of multiple phases or sub-activities arranged in a temporal sequence (Aeppli & Lötscher, 2016; Lenske & Lohse-Bossenz, 2023). Although the reflective cycle is initiated by an event, such as one shown in a video stimulus of a pedagogical situation, cognitive processes (including describing, interpreting, and drawing alternative options and conclusions) remain central (Lenske & Lohse-Bossenz, 2023). In addition to the process-based perspective of professional reflection, reflection also encompasses various core components, such as one’s own actions, the actions of others, and the situation (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999), which can be understood as a focus on the subject matter. A variety of reflection models incorporate these content-specific aspects to evaluate previous actions and to explore alternative, more adequate options for further actions. In the present study, we focus on a reflection matrix that includes reflection activities and essential contents (Lohse-Bossenz et al., 2019). The matrix distinguishes between the following reflective activities: describing, explaining, evaluating, generating alternatives, and drawing conclusions. Additionally, it incorporates content-specific aspects such as the setting of the situation, the actions of the professional, and the actions of children, grounded on a heuristic conceptualization of the didactic triangle.

Approaches using various forms of reflections, such as verbal or written reflections, are suitable for empirically investigating reflection processes that include sub-activities and content-specific aspects (Weber et al., 2022). Referring to this, the quality of reflection processes can be assessed through stage models (e.g., Hatton & Smith, 1995) or, as in the present study, through matrices, also referred to as “category systems” (e.g., Brandtner & Lohse-Bossenz, 2017). Therefore, reflection is considered comprehensive when all reflective sub-activities (describing, explaining, evaluating, and generating alternatives and conclusions) and reflective contents (the situation, actions of the professional, and actions of children) are applied in written reflections (Brandtner & Lohse-Bossenz, 2017; Lohse-Bossenz et al., 2019)

1.5. Factors Influencing Professional Reflection

The process of reflection can be influenced by dispositions, such as knowledge, or by affective-motivational aspects such as attitudes, values, beliefs, role conceptions, and experiences (Wyss, 2018). Furthermore, the reflective process can also be influenced by situational factors such as the context, the form of reflection, and the task (Wyss, 2023). Likewise, the quality of reflection is also influenced by various factors. In the teaching context, because classrooms are complex and multidimensional spaces, it is quite impossible to draw attention to all events occurring at one time. Accordingly, (domain-specific) knowledge influences the process of noticing relevant—and ignoring irrelevant—aspects of the pedagogical situation, while only aspects that have been noticed and identified as relevant can be interpreted in the process of knowledge-based reasoning (van Es & Sherin, 2002). This is in line with the assumed mental process of professional reflection (Lenske & Lohse-Bossenz, 2023). Therefore, differences in reflection arise due to different levels of knowledge or attitudes. Teachers‘ processing of information (e.g., students, interactions, communication, and objects) affects what they notice, and knowledge-based reasoning influences how they interpret (Wolff et al., 2017). For instance, to manage their classrooms effectively, teachers must be aware of classroom events and focus their attention on learning relevant aspects (Wolff et al., 2016). Teachers must process visual information to understand the situation and act adequately. Expertise in one’s profession influences how attention is distributed to relevant aspects, which aspects are perceived as relevant or considered as informative, and how they are interpreted as meaningful (Wolff et al., 2020). In sum, dispositions and motivational-affective aspects influence the process of professional reflection. Although previous research has identified key factors influencing the reflective process and examined how professional reflection in teacher education can be supported through various formats (Kücholl & Lazarides, 2021; Weber et al., 2018), less is known about the relationship and potential congruence between visual and reflective processes when observing video-recorded events in pedagogical contexts.

1.6. Eye-Tracking Methodology

The focus of visual attention is an important determinant of how a situation is visually perceived, which aspects are noticed, and how situational information is processed. In this vein, eye-tracking is a suitable method to study visual perception processes (e.g., selective attention) that offers insights into the underlying cognitive processes (e.g., strategies of information processes) (Stürmer et al., 2017). In this context, eye-tracking metrics, especially fixation count and fixation duration, can be used as indicators for attentional processes (Pappa et al., 2020). The number and duration of fixations indicate, respectively, how often and how long areas of a scene are visually perceived and mentally processed (Holmqvist & Andersson, 2017). Results of fixation count and total fixation duration on specific areas of interest (AOIs) are interpreted as ”higher“ or ”lower“ compared to random fixation distribution. Higher fixation counts and durations mean that participants focus more frequently and for longer on a specific area of the screen compared to equal distribution across the screen. Even though making inferences from eye movements to interpretations is difficult, eye movements appear promising as a means of operationalizing attentional processes on relevant features, as indicated by visual focus (Seidel et al., 2021).

Prior eye-tracking studies have focused predominantly on teacher development and classroom management (van den Bogert et al., 2014; Wolff et al., 2016). Although eye-tracking methodology has been increasingly used in teacher education to understand professional actions (Jarodzka et al., 2017), it remains uncommon in early childhood education research and is rarely used to investigate reflective processes (Busch & Lohse-Bossenz, 2024).

1.7. Aim of the Study

This study aims to explore early childhood professionals’ visual and reflective focus using eye-tracking and written reflections. Professional reflection requires situation-specific knowledge, yet little is known about the focus of reflection, what professionals detect and recognize as relevant, and how this information will be interpreted while reflecting upon videos. While reflecting, professionals focus on the environment (e.g., situation and objects) and actions of involved people (e.g., other professionals, children, interactions, and communication). Insights into the relationship between visual and reflective focus are of particular relevance for professional development in the educational context. A discrepancy between what early childhood professionals visually focus on and what they later reflect on may indicate the need for more targeted support in developing reflective skills. By better understanding this relationship, educational programs can be designed to foster reflective practice and enhance professional vision.

In the present study, we focus on the sub-processes of professional reflection by using videotaped examples of pedagogical situations in a kindergarten as event-related stimuli for external reflection. Therefore, a combination of eye-tracking metrics and written reflections is used to examine what early childhood professionals focus on as well as how they reflect on what they observe. Using this approach, it is possible to compare gaze patterns in participants’ eye-tracking metrics with patterns expressed in their written reflections. The research questions focus on visual attention and reflection processes related to relevant pedagogical aspects, as well as the relationship between both processes. The following research questions, along with their corresponding hypotheses, are addressed:

Research question (1): Which aspects of a pedagogical situation do early childhood professionals focus on?

Hypothesis 1. 

It is expected that participants who watch examples of video-recorded situations in a kindergarten will focus on relevant aspects of pedagogical situations. Therefore, participants are predicted to have more fixations and longer total fixation durations on three defined areas of interest (AOIs)—“situation,” “professional,” and “children.”

Research question (2): Which aspects of a pedagogical situation do early childhood professionals reflect upon?

Hypothesis 2. 

It is expected that participants will reflect on relevant aspects of pedagogical situations. Therefore, participants’ written reflections are predicted to have higher counts on the reflective contents—“setting of the situation,” “actions of the professional,” and “actions of the children”—in their written reflections.

Research question (3): To what extent are attentional and reflective processes congruent?

Hypothesis 3. 

It is expected that participants who focus on specific features in a video-recorded situation more frequently and over a longer time will also mention these specific aspects more frequently within their written reflections. Accordingly, attentional and reflective processes are expected to be congruent. For this, fixation counts and total fixation durations on the defined AOIs—“situation,” “professional,” and “children,”—as well as the reflective contents—“setting of the situation,” ”actions of the professional,” and “actions of the children,” are predicted to be significantly correlated.

2. Materials and Methods

A mixed-methods design comprising an eye-tracking experiment and written reflections was chosen for this exploratory research.

2.1. Participants

In total, N = 16 early childhood professionals (14 female) with a mean age of 31.12 years (SD = 8.18 years) participated voluntarily in this exploratory study. All participants were native German speakers. The vast majority of the sample (87.5%) were kindergarten educators, and only two (12.5%) had a bachelor of arts degree in either primary childhood pedagogy or social work. All participants had between 1 and 19 years of experience working in a kindergarten (M = 5.76 years, SD = 5.75 years). They were experienced with written reflections (M = 1.06, SD = 0.25; 1 = yes, 2 = no), video-based reflections of their own videos (M = 3.62, SD = 0.61; rating scale from 1 = none to 4 = very much), and video-based reflections of others’ videos (M = 3.31, SD = 0.94; rating scale from 1 = none to 4 = very much). All professionals participating in the study had normal or corrected-to-normal (e.g., glasses and contact lenses).

The early childhood professionals were recruited via mail through their headmaster at a kindergarten in Germany. Prior to the start of the experiment, written informed consent was obtained. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. Full anonymity and confidentiality were ensured for all participants.

In order to be included in the study, participants were required to be employed as early childhood professionals at the collaborating kindergarten, possess completed formal education in the field of early childhood, and have normal or corrected-to-normal vision. vision. Individuals who did not meet these criteria were excluded from participation.

2.2. Procedure

The study was conducted in a kindergarten during the summer of 2021 and lasted approximately 60 min. Participants were introduced to the procedure and familiarized with the eye-tracking setting. Prior to the experiment, a 5-point calibration was carried out. After the short introduction, participants were instructed to watch three short video clips once, in a standardized order, and to observe them in general. Participants watched each video once and were not given the option to replay, pause, or stop the video. The videos were presented on a 22-inch computer screen with a resolution of 1920 × 1080. While watching the videos, participants’ eye movements were recorded with the Tobii Pro Fusion eye-tracking device. After each video, participants were asked to reflect on the video generally and to write down what they noticed; there were no specific instructions beyond this. The corresponding initial task was “Please reflect the video in written form.” The retrospective written reflections were open-ended. After observing and reflecting on all three video clips, participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire on demographic variables (e.g., gender and age) and experience with video-based reflections. The analysis of participants’ eye movements and retrospective written reflections forms part of the present study.

2.3. Video Stimulus

As event-related stimuli, three short video clips of authentic pedagogical situations in the kindergarten were used, with durations of 1:45 min (Video 1), 2:36 min (Video 2), and 3:11 min (Video 3) (length: M = 2.31 min, SD = 0.82). The videos were developed in the research project “Förderung der Reflexionsfähigkeit frühpädagogischer Fachkräfte (FOERFLEX; Fostering Early Childhood Professionals‘ Reflection)” at the University of Education Heidelberg. All videos were filmed from a centered perspective in a static camera position and showed the observer’s perspective in full-view mode. The use of videos ensured a standardized and controlled stimulus, providing all participants with identical visual input from a consistent perspective. This enabled systematic comparisons of reflective processes and minimized potential confounding variables.

The video clips portrayed interactions between an early childhood professional and a group of three- to five-year-old children in learning settings. The first video showed an early childhood professional with two children outdoors in the garden, in a puddle. The second video displayed two early childhood professionals with three children who were playing indoors with buttons. The last video presented a situation in which an early childhood professional and five children were outdoors around a bonfire. Exemplary scenes from all videos are shown in Figure 1.

Participants rated all videos to be authentic (M = 4.67, SD = 0.46; rating scale from 1 = does not apply to 5 = applies) and found evaluating them to be simple (M = 4.33, SD = 0.55; rating scale from 1 = does not apply to 5 = applies). They also reported having enough time (M = 4.90, SD = 0.27; rating scale from 1 = does not apply to 5 = applies) as well as enough information to evaluate (M = 1.26, SD = 0.33; 1 = yes, 2 = no) the video clips1.

2.4. Eye-Tracking Apparatus and Settings

The eye movements were recorded with the Tobii Pro Fusion, a binocular remote eye-tracking system with a 120 Hz sampling rate, on a 22-inch computer screen. The conditions of the eye-tracking setup were standardized (i.e., constant ceiling light and 65 cm average distance between the screen, eye-tracker, and participant). Before beginning the actual experiment, a 5-point calibration was used to maintain data quality (Holmqvist & Andersson, 2017). If data quality (i.e., accuracy and precision) was not satisfactory, calibration was repeated. The eye-tracker gathered eye movements with an average calibration accuracy of 0.67° (SD = 0.17°), an average calibration precision of 0.31° (SD = 0.23°), and mean gaze samples of 94%. Tobii Pro Lab software (Tobii Pro AB, 2014) was used for data recording and eye-tracking data analysis.

2.5. Data Analysis

To analyze fixation-based data, AOIs were set using Tobii Pro Lab software. AOIs were deductively defined using a matrix-driven system, also referred to as a “category system“ (Brandtner & Lohse-Bossenz, 2017). Three AOIs were defined: (1) situation, (2) early childhood professional, and (3) children. Exemplary AOIs for the first video are visualized in Figure 2. The defined AOIs can be assumed as central aspects across the videos and as meaningful to understanding the setting from an educational perspective. Because the video stimuli were dynamic and the setting (e.g., different setup and number of persons) varied across the videos, AOIs were drawn manually. Although the vast majority of AOIs were in the shape of a rectangle, dynamic AOIs varied in size (and, to a lesser degree, in shape) across the videos. Because multiple professionals and children appeared in the videos, the individual AOIs (e.g., child_1 and child_2) per video were summarized into one common AOI (e.g., children) for the analysis. As such, the analysis for each video contains aggregated AOIs for situation, professional, and children.

With regard to the first research question, fixation-based metrics (i.e., fixation count and total fixation duration) for each AOI were calculated using the Tobii I-VT Fixation Filter to determine how often and for how long an AOI was focused on. Due to data quality concerns regarding calibration, three recordings of eye movement data and the corresponding written reflections were excluded from analysis. In this study, a total of 45 eye-tracking recordings and written reflections were analyzed.

The written reflections were qualitatively analyzed using MAXQDA 2020 (VERBI Software, 2021), applying a category system (Brandtner & Lohse-Bossenz, 2017) that focused on three dimensions of early childhood education settings. First, units of analysis of 45 written reflections were identified. Furthermore, they were coded with reference to the main categories of the category system: “situation,” “professional,” and “children” (Brandtner & Lohse-Bossenz, 2017). These main categories are analogous to the defined AOIs. Retrospective written reflections were independently coded by two raters with a high interrater reliability as measured using Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.83).

Concerning the second research question, the frequency of mentions was calculated to determine how often each AOI (“situation,” “professional,” and “children”) was mentioned. In addition, eye-tracking data were compared with reflecting data to distinguish between visual focus and reflective focus.

Regarding the third research question, Pearson’s correlation between eye-tracking data (fixation count and total fixation duration) and qualitative data was calculated. The comparability of videos was assessed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (rANOVA). For the statistical analysis, an alpha level of 0.05 was used.

3. Results

The aim of this study was to investigate (1) which aspects of a pedagogical situation early childhood professionals focus on, (2) which aspects they reflect upon, and (3) to what extent attentional and reflective processes are congruent. The analysis of the data is based on N = 45 recordings and written reflections.

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

An rANOVA was performed to assess the three videos’ comparability in terms of homogeneity. It was expected that all three videos depicted pedagogical situations.

The analysis showed video-specific differences across the videos: Although participants focused more on the AOI “children” in Videos 1 and 2, they viewed the AOIs “professional” and “children” almost equally in Video 3. The variance between participants and videos was relatively high. An rANOVA revealed a significant effect of reflective focus on the AOI “professional” across the videos, F(2, 24) = 3.66, p < 0.004. No further significant differences were found for eye-tracking data (fixation count and total fixation duration) or reflective data on the AOIs “situation,” “professional,” and “children” across the videos (see

Table 1. Repeated-measures ANOVA results for eye-tracking data and reflective data.

Parameter	F-Value	df (Between)	df (Within)	p-Value	η2p
Fixation Count
AOI: situation	154.30	2	24	>0.001	0.647
AOI: professional	40.12	2	24	>0.001	0.614
AOI: children	51.79	2	24	>0.001	0.664
Total Fixation Duration
AOI: situation	45.50	2	24	>0.001	0.348
AOI: professional	40.67	2	24	>0.001	0.605
AOI: children	33.58	2	24	>0.001	0.465
Reflection
AOI: situation	2.60	2	24	0.095	0.073
AOI: professional	3.66	2	24	0.004	0.110
AOI: children	10.74	2	24	>0.001	0.260

Notes. Video as the repeated-measures factor. AOI = Area of Interest.

). Therefore, the results show that the videos are not comparable with one another. However, because all of the participants watched all of the videos, analyses refer to aggregated parameters when appropriate.

3.2. Hypothesis Regarding the Visual Attention Process on Relevant Pedagogical Aspects—Eye-Tracking Data (Fixation Count and Total Fixation Duration)

Fixation-based metrics (fixation count and total fixation duration) for each AOI (“situation,” “professional,” and “children”) were calculated to analyze how often and for how long each AOI was visually focused on. A higher number of fixations and longer fixation durations on the defined AOIs—“situation,” “professional,” and “children”—are expected, as participants are assumed to focus on relevant aspects of pedagogical situations.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of eye-tracking data and written reflections.

Parameter	Video 1	Video 2	Video 3	All Videos
Fixation Count
AOI: situation	103.79 (16.25)	176.40 (28.97)	113.56 (24.84)	131.47 (40.06)
AOI: professional	19.57 (10.00)	35.03 (26.74)	65.00 (66.67)	44.53 (49.28)
AOI: children	91.86 (20.38)	31.69 (17.46)	62.60 (28.83)	79.90 (41.17)
Total Fixation Duration
AOI: situation	43.37 (8.35)	57.99 (10.66)	47.62 (9.99)	49.75 (11.34)
AOI: professional	6.90 (4.45)	10.70 (7.72)	22.74 (24.76)	14.97 (17.90)
AOI: children	30.98 (6.30)	31.69 (17.46)	22.38 (12.22)	26.69 (13.92)
Reflection
AOI: situation	18	24	35	77
AOI: professional	58	65	100	223
AOI: children	81	125	63	269

Notes. AOI = Area of Interest. Means and standard deviations of fixation count and total fixation duration. Absolute frequencies of the areas of interest in written reflections.

presents the mean values and standard deviations of fixation count and total fixation duration for each AOI aggregated over videos. Additionally, it shows the counts of each AOI in the written reflections. Based on eye-tracking data, it can be seen that participants focused primarily on the situational features (AOI “situation”) and the actions of the children (AOI “children”). Therefore, participants fixated more frequently and over a longer time, which is shown by a higher number of fixation metrics, on these two content-specific aspects.

3.3. Hypothesis Regarding the Reflective Process on Relevant Pedagogical Aspects—Written Reflections

The total number of mentions per AOI was derived through a qualitative analysis of the written reflections to analyze how frequently each AOI was mentioned. Higher frequencies of reflective content (“setting of the situation,” “actions of the professional,” and “actions of the children”) are expected in the written reflections because these aspects are assumed to be particularly relevant for interpreting pedagogical situations.

The written reflections across all videos had an average length of 36.37 segments (SD = 16.16) and an average text length of 319 words (SD = 139.14). In contrast with the eye-tracking data, the analysis of the written reflections revealed that participants more frequently reflected on the actions of the professional (AOI “professional”) and the actions of the children (AOI ‘children’), whereas situational features (AOI “situation”) were less frequently reported (see Table 2).

3.4. Hypothesis Regarding the Congruence Between Visual and Reflective Focus—Eye-Tracking Data and Written Reflections

Correlation analyses between eye-tracking data (fixation count and total fixation duration for the AOIs) and the frequency of corresponding aspects in the written reflections (total count for the reflective contents) were conducted to evaluate the degree of congruence between visual and reflective focus. It was predicted that participants who focused more frequently and for longer on specific features in a video-recorded situation would also refer to these specific aspects more frequently within their written reflections. Accordingly, congruence between eye-tracking data and written reflections is expected.

Correlations between eye-tracking data (fixation count and total fixation duration) and reflective data (reflective contents) on comparable AOIs are presented in

Table 3. Results of the correlations between eye-tracking data and written reflections.

Parameter	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Fixation Count
1. AOI: situation				0.81 **			0.23
2. AOI: professional					0.95 **			0.23
3. AOI: children						0.84 **			0.46 *
Total Fixation Duration
4. AOI: situation							−0.01
5. AOI: professional								0.16
6. AOI: children									0.39 *
Reflection
7. AOI: situation
8. AOI: professional
9. AOI: children

Notes. Pearson correlation coefficient between fixation count, total fixation duration, and content of reflection. FC = Fixation count; FD = Fixation duration; Ref = Content of reflection. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.001.

. The results of the correlation analysis show significant associations between fixation count and total fixation duration across all AOIs (“situation”: r = 0.81, p = < 0.001 *; “professional”: r = 0.95, p < 0.001; “children”: r = 0.84, p < 0.001). Furthermore, fixation count for the AOI “children” (r = 0.46, p = 0.001), as well as total fixation duration for the AOI “children” (r = 0.39, p = 0.006), is significantly correlated with the reflection on the actions of the children. No further significant correlations were found between fixation count, total fixation duration, and reflection across the AOIs and reflective contents. Therefore, participants focused and reflected partially on the same aspects of pedagogical situations.

3.5. Summary of the Results

Overall, the results highlight differentiated patterns in the visual and reflective focus of early childhood professionals when observing video-recorded pedagogical situations. Eye-tracking data revealed that participants visually focused on situational features and children‘s actions, whereas the reflective focus centered more on the professionals’ and children’s actions. The triangulated data show partial congruence between visual and reflective focus for child-related aspects. These findings highlight that eye-tracking and reflective data capture complementary aspects—eye-tracking revealing both conscious and unconscious attentional processes and written reflections representing deliberate interpretative thought.

4. Discussion

This study empirically examined early childhood professionals’ visual and reflective focus on defined aspects of pedagogical situations (setting of the situation, actions of the professional, and actions of the children) using a mixed-methods design encompassing eye-tracking and retrospective written reflections. Although various formats, such as written reflections, have been widely used to investigate reflective processes, eye-tracking methodology has rarely been used. Therefore, we investigated (1) which aspects of a pedagogical situation early childhood professionals focus on, (2) which aspects they reflect upon, and (3) to what extent attentional and reflective processes are congruent.

4.1. Visual Attention Process on Relevant Pedagogical Aspects—Eye-Tracking Data (Fixation Count and Total Fixation Duration)

This study’s findings provide insights into which aspects of pedagogical situations early childhood professionals focus on when watching video-recorded pedagogical situations from a kindergarten. With regard to the first research question, early childhood professionals (as expected) tended to focus more frequently, and for longer, on content-specific features of the situation (AOI “situation”) and the actions of the children (AOI “children”). This was demonstrated in the eye-tracking metrics (fixation count and total fixation duration), as indicated by higher fixation counts and longer total fixation durations for these two AOIs. In contrast, the actions of the professional (AOI “professional”) received less visual attention. This is partially consistent with previous research showing that professionals focus on students’ behavior in the classroom (Kaminskienė et al., 2023). These findings suggest that early childhood professionals prioritize aspects that are directly observable and likely considered most relevant to evaluating learning processes (Jarodzka et al., 2017).

4.2. Reflective Process on Relevant Pedagogical Aspects—Written Reflections

In addition to the visual focus, this study examined which aspects of pedagogical situations early childhood professionals reflect upon. The reflective focus offers insight into the interpretative focus. Concerning the second research question (and as hypothesized), early childhood professionals predominantly reflected on relevant features of the pedagogical situations in their written reflections, specifically the action of the professional (AOI “professional”) and children (AOI “children”), but less so on situational features (AOI “situation”). This was shown by the higher frequency with which these AOIs were mentioned in the written reflections. These findings suggest that early childhood professionals tend to reflect on observable behaviors rather than on contextual elements. Furthermore, they may selectively reflect on aspects that are most relevant for pedagogical reasoning (Keller et al., 2022). Accordingly, professionals tend to reflect upon issues they may be able to control and thus change. Therefore, a reflective focus on the professional allows insights into behavioral patterns, which impact the pedagogical interaction.

4.3. Congruence Between Visual and Reflective Focus—Eye-Tracking Data and Written Re-Flections

Furthermore, the congruence between visual (eye-tracking data: fixation count and total fixation duration) and reflective focus (written reflections: frequency of mentioning reflective content) was investigated. Regarding the third research question, eye-tracking data and written reflections were only partially congruent for the AOI “children” (as initially expected), whereas no such congruence was found for the remaining AOIs. Specifically, fixation count and total fixation duration were significantly correlated with the frequency of reflections on the actions of the children. This indicates a meaningful congruence between what early childhood professionals visually focused on and what they considered relevant in their written reflections (at least for child-related aspects). However, no significant correlations were found between eye-tracking metrics and reflective content for the AOIs “situation” and “professional”. Although situational features (AOI “situation”) and the actions of the children (AOI “children”) were focused on more frequently and for longer while watching the videos, persons involved in the interaction (actions of the professional and actions of the children) were mentioned more frequently in writing. These findings are consistent with previous research showing discrepancies between eye-tracking metrics and reflective data (Wyss et al., 2023). Eye-tracking methodology is a promising tool to operationalize attentional processes by indicating visual focus on relevant features. Thus, patterns of visual behavior and attention can be inferred from eye movements, but it remains critical to acknowledge that eye movements do not consistently allow for definitive conclusions and interpretations about the attentional focus or the underlying cognitive information processing (Pouta et al., 2021). With this caveat in mind, the findings should be interpreted with caution. The results imply that eye-tracking encompasses conscious as well as unconscious visual attention processes, whereas written reflections are restricted to consciously reflective processes (Godfroid et al., 2020 cited by Wyss et al., 2023). Accordingly, eye-tracking data are considered objective, capturing real-time visual processing of information, whereas reflective data, such as written reflections, involve subjective interpretation of the content and stimulate retrospective information processing (Pouta et al., 2021). The partial congruence between visual and reflective focus partly supports the assumption that eye movements align with their cognitive focus when interpreting pedagogical situations (Stürmer et al., 2017).

The findings indicate that although situational features may influence visual attention processes, situational features do not appear to be equally prioritized in conscious processes of professional reflection. Instead, the actions of the professional appear to gain relevance when interpreted in written form. Therefore, visual attention may serve as a precondition for reflection, but it cannot fully explain the underlying cognitive processes of professional vision (Minarikova et al., 2021 cited by Wyss et al., 2023). Thus, eye-tracking data and written reflections can provide distinct and complementary insights into processes of professional vision and professional reflection.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

The results provide initial insights into processes of professional reflection in the field of early childhood education, but they are limited in their generalizability and should therefore be interpreted as exploratory in nature. Given the exploratory nature of the study and the small sample size, future research involving larger samples is necessary to examine the replicability and transferability of the findings.

The videos used here represented only a subset of the complex dynamics in kindergarten environments and depicted only non-problematic situations. While videos represent an artificial setting, they enhance internal validity by providing a standardized and controlled stimulus. Nevertheless, their artificial nature compared to live classroom environments, as well as the video perspective, may still influence participants’ reflection. Despite those particular limitations of the three short videos used in this study, videos of pedagogical situations are, in general, a valuable tool for initiating and fostering processes of professional reflection (Sherin & van Es, 2005). However, real-life classroom settings may reveal additional aspects of professional reflection that remain undetected in video-based studies. Further studies using mobile eye-tracking devices in live classroom settings could provide additional insights into the processes of professional reflection, particularly by enabling professionals to visually focus and reflect on their own actions from the actors‘ perspective (Kaminskienė et al., 2023).

The visual focus of attention can be guided by prompts to focus on specific aspects of pedagogical situations (Wyss et al., 2023). To elicit visual and reflective processes in response to the video-based stimuli, a general task prompt was used. The partial congruence between visual and reflective focus may be attributed to the general task formulation, which lacked explicit prompts directing participants’ focus to specific aspects of the situation during video observation and subsequent reflection (Greve et al., 2021). Specific instructional prompts can direct visual focus and simultaneously facilitate the reflective focus within written reflections. Future studies may explore how structured video guides influence visual as well as reflective focus (Brouwer et al., 2017; Husu et al., 2008).

Written reflections may not fully capture implicit or unconscious processes of professional reflection, potentially limiting insights into deeper cognitive processes. Nevertheless, written reflections are a widely used format for investigating reflection processes, including sub-activities and content-specific aspects (Weber et al., 2022). Future research should incorporate multiple formats of reflection to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

In this study, expertise was not considered as a factor influencing professional reflection. Varying levels of vocational experience and prior knowledge may influence the processes of reflection. In future research, expertise and other novel factors should be operationalized based on vocational experience and knowledge.

As outlined in the methods section, the AOIs were drawn manually due to the dynamic nature of the video stimuli, wherein the AOIs varied in position, size, and shape. Moreover, in some videos, contextual factors led to partial overlaps between AOIs, which may have influenced the interpretation of eye movement data. Because overlaps between AOIs cannot always be avoided, it is necessary to account for their potential impact on the accuracy and interpretation of eye-tracking data (Holmqvist & Andersson, 2017). In this paper, AOI overlaps were addressed by splitting fixations. In the case of overlapping AOIs, fixations were assigned to multiple AOIs.

The analysis focused on descriptive fixation-based metrics (i.e., fixation count, total fixation duration), with data aggregated across the entire video sequence. This approach does not yet exploit the full potential of dynamic gaze analysis. Future research could benefit from employing advanced eye-tracking analysis methods, such as visual analytics techniques including scanpaths, scatter plots, or heatmaps, to investigate the temporal structure of gaze behavior across video stimuli (Holmqvist & Andersson, 2017). These methods facilitate a dynamic visualization of the sequence and overlap of attentional shifts and may provide a more nuanced understanding of the visual attention processes involved in observing complex pedagogical contexts, whether in video-recorded or live settings.

5. Conclusions

This study provides empirical insights into the visual attention and reflective processes of early childhood professionals when interpreting video-recorded pedagogical situations, using a mixed-methods design that combined eye-tracking methodology with written reflections. Eye-tracking is a relatively new method of investigating processes of professional reflection. The findings demonstrate that participants focused primarily on situational features and the actions of the children, whereas the actions of the professional received less visual attention. In contrast, they reflected predominantly on the actions of the professional and children in their written reflections, with only limited reference to situational features of the context. Moreover, the results show a partial congruence between visual and reflective focus, specifically with regard to child-related aspects.

The study highlights the value of triangulating eye-tracking data with retrospective written reflections to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the processes involved in professional reflection. Overall, the integration of eye-tracking and reflective data offers a valuable perspective on how early childhood professionals focus on and reflect upon pedagogical situations in kindergarten settings. This methodological approach holds promise for professional development and training in early childhood education, with the goal of fostering reflective practice and enhancing professional vision.