Toward collaboration sensing

Article

Abstract

We describe preliminary applications of network analysis techniques to eye-tracking data collected during a collaborative learning activity. This paper makes three contributions: first, we visualize collaborative eye-tracking data as networks, where the nodes of the graph represent fixations and edges represent saccades. We found that those representations can serve as starting points for formulating research questions and hypotheses about collaborative processes. Second, network metrics can be computed to interpret the properties of the graph and find proxies for the quality of students’ collaboration. We found that different characteristics of our graphs correlated with different aspects of students’ collaboration (for instance, the extent to which students reached consensus was associated with the average size of the strongly connected components of the graphs). Third, we used those characteristics to predict the quality of students’ collaboration by feeding those features into a machine-learning algorithm. We found that among the eight dimensions of collaboration that we considered, we were able to roughly predict (using a median-split) students’ quality of collaboration with an accuracy between ~85 and 100 %. We conclude by discussing implications for developing “collaboration-sensing” tools, and comment on implementing this approach for formal learning environments.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Dual eye-tracking Network analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge grant support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for this work from the LIFE Center (NSF #0835854).

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, E., Thal, D., Whitesell, K., Fenson, L., & Oakes, L. (1989). Integrating language and gesture in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 1004–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Infant gaze following and pointing predict accelerated vocabulary growth through two years of age: A longitudinal, growth curve modeling study. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catan, L. (1986). The dynamic display of process: Historical development and contemporary uses of the microgenetic method. Human Development, 29(5), 252–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherubini, M., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Deixis and gaze in collaborative work at a distance (over a shared map): a computational model to detect misunderstandings. In Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, ETRA’08 (pp. 173–180). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. N. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20(3), 273–297.Google Scholar
  8. Engelbart, D. (1963). Conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect. In P. Howerton & D. Weeks (Eds.), Vistas in information handling (pp. 1–29). Spartan Books.Google Scholar
  9. Erdos, P., & Rényi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci, 5, 17–61.Google Scholar
  10. Flavell, J. H., & Draguns, J. (1957). A microgenetic approach to perception and thought. Psychological Bulletin, 54(3), 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, L. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness. Sociometry, 40, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fruchterman, T. M., & Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience, 21(11), 1129–1164.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jermann, P., Mullins, D., Nuessli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Collaborative gaze footprints: Correlates of interaction quality. In Proceedings of CSCL 2011. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  15. Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu, Y., Hsueh, P.-Y., Lai, J., Sangin, M., Nussli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Who is the expert? Analyzing gaze data to predict expertise level in collaborative applications. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2009. ICME 2009 (pp. 898 –901).Google Scholar
  17. Luria, A. (1978). The development of writing in the child. In M. Cole (Ed.), The selected writings of A. R. Luria. New York: M. Sharpe. Originally published, 1928.Google Scholar
  18. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of “scaffolding” and related theoretical concepts for learning, education and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  21. Pentland, A. S. (2010). Honest signals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29(6), 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenthal, V. (2004). Microgenesis, immediate experience and visual processes in reading. In Seeing, thinking and knowing (pp. 221–243). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rothman, K. J. (1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1(1), 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2013). Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwartz, D., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.Google Scholar
  29. Scribner, S. (1984). Organizing knowledge at work. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 6(1&2), 5.Google Scholar
  30. Scribner, S. (1985). Vygotsky’s uses of history. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 119–145). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Selassie, D., Heller, B., & Heer, J. (2011). Divided edge bundling for directional network data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12), 2354–2363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern, D. N. (2002). The first relationship: Infant and mother. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. D. (Eds.). (2014). Embodied Interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Werner, H. (1940). The comparative psychology of mental development (2nd ed.). Chicago: Follett, 1948. Originally published, 1926.Google Scholar
  37. Werner, H. (1956). Microgenesis and aphasia. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 52, 347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations