**8. Conclusion**

*Visual Impairment and Blindness - What We Know and What We Have to Know*

Although this pioneering research into eye-movements during barking at print may have raised more questions than it has resolved, its significance particularly lies in pointing out that eye movements during barking at print are distinct from kinds of reading which exist in the eye-tracking literature. Findings from research into mindless reading and mind-wandering during reading, which are both associated with decoding with negligible comprehension, differ from the findings presented here in manners which show that comprehension, at least at the word level, for at least some of the words, does indeed affect eye-movement metrics. Except for the 'jumping barkers', eye movement was not found to be erratic in barking at print, whereas eye movement during mind-wandering is. Fixation durations of the barkers were shorter than those of the readers in this study and similar to second language reading, whereas mind-wandering and mindless reading are known to be associated with longer fixation durations than normal reading. Significant variation in eye-movement metrics between the lines of text, during barking at print, suggest changes in cognitive activity in response to textual features. In contrast, mind-wandering (cf. [5, 42, 43]) and mindless reading [15] are both associated with considerable uniformity in these metrics across lines. The low presence of regressions, however, is a point of

This chapter has provided a general description, with tentative metric ranges, for barking at print, at least by learners in this context. However, detection of these metrics does not necessarily diagnose barking, as evidenced by the lack of statistical significance between the barkers and the non-barkers in this sample. Therefore, detection of such metrics should be seen as indicating a high likelihood of barking, rather than as necessary detection of barking, with additional research required to enhance the validity of the diagnosis on the basis of eye-movements. Two limitations in this research are considered to have contributed to this lack of precision: (1) the assumption that regular eye-movement across text, at least for part of the text, indicates a high enough degree of decoding proficiency for a reader to potentially engage in barking at print (recall that in order to bark a reader must be able to decode); (2) the possibility that some of the learners classified as readers may also have been barking at print while reading screen 1, obscuring differences between the groups for the analysis performed here. Barking was deduced from the eye-movement behaviour and comprehension scores obtained as the learners answered questions on screen 2, which had screen 1's text repeated on one half of the screen, allowing the participants to re-read the text. It is possible that participants mitigated barking on screen 1 by undergoing reading with comprehension as they referred back to the text on screen 2, thus being able to answer the questions with reasonable comprehension, and therefore being categorised in one of the two non-barking groups despite their metrics actually displaying barking. This could explain the insignificant difference between the groups. If this is the case, it would mean that barking could be seen as an additional reading gear which at least some people can move into or out of depending on expectations, such as whether the reader realises that he/she is expected to answer questions about the text or not.

Future research could address these limitations by: (1) testing decoding accuracy

explicitly using a fluency test while learners read text out loud (2) requiring the participants to answer questions immediately after reading, without being given the opportunity to refer back to the text. The limitation caused by the assumption that decoding proficiency is sufficient for barking to even be a possibility, is reduced by the fact that these were grade 8 and 9 learners reading in the language of learning and teaching (LoLT) which they had been schooled in for at least 5 years, and that the majority had been identified by their teachers as being academically strong.

**7. Significance, limitations, further investigation**

similarity to both mind-wandering and mindless reading.

**378**

Given the pivotal role the ability to read with comprehension plays in cognitive development and academic achievement, it is vital that we enhance our understanding of reading difficulties, such as barking at print. This is done with the view of eventually being able to inform application of this knowledge to providing effective interventions. Eye-tracking technology is particularly powerful as a research method since it exposes the otherwise invisible and individual process which readers undergo. It is also a potentially powerful tool for intervention, once a phenomenon is understood sufficiently for valid application. This research has begun the investigation into understanding of a reading difficulty which is highly prevalent among the poor and marginalised, while also being in no way absent from more developed and affluent communities. Once a definitive classification can be proposed for readers in disadvantaged areas in South Africa, diagnostic and intervention programmes can be developed. Learners who are struggling can be evaluated using the diagnostic tools in order to determine whether their reading behaviour could be the reason for poor performance in an academic setting. Once each learner has been classified, the intervention programmes designed for their particular group can be applied. In this way, these learners can be identified and assisted and this could eventually lead to improved performance for these learners.
