Implementation of real-time online mouse tracking on overseas quiz session

From server administrator point of view

Abstract

Mouse tracking serves as an alternative to eye tracking in measuring the learning process in education because of its affordability. Moreover, mouse tracking does not require extra hardware, as in the case of eye tracking, because it is a feature in personal computers by default. Therefore, it is possible to implement mouse tracking in a massive open scale. However, mouse tracking has only been implemented in a laboratory setting to date, ostensibly because of the associated extremely high running costs. Nonetheless, there is no available data to support the claim of high resource costs, which has resulted in much speculation among implementers. In general, the implementation of mouse tracking in a non-laboratory environment is still rare. Therefore, the authors developed an application to investigate real-time mouse tracking online. It was implemented on the Moodle learning management system and tested on an online quiz session accessed abroad. Additionally, the application can handle tracking on mobile devices. In this work, the main resources that include CPU, network, RAM, and storage costs were measured when mouse tracking was used. These results can serve as a reference for network and server administrators during future implementation of this technique. It was determined that the characteristics of mouse activities were dynamic in that occasional surges and lulls were observed. Additionally, this article also discussed the advantage of real-time and online implementation to regular online implementation and showed that there is a possibility of implementing mouse tracking on a large scale if mouse tracking data are not aggregated and transmitted as a single data package.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

References

  1. Alhasan, K., Chen, L., Chen, F. (2018). An experimental study of learning behaviour in an elearning environment. In 2018 IEEE 20th international conference on high performance computing and communications; IEEE 16th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 4th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS) (pp. 1398–1403): IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC/SmartCity/DSS.2018.00231

  2. Arapakis, I., & Leiva, L.A. (2016). Predicting user engagement with direct displays using mouse cursor information. In Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 599–608): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2911451.2911505

  3. Arroyo, E., Selker, T., Wei, W. (2006). Usability tool for analysis of web designs using mouse tracks. In CHI’06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 484–489): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125557

  4. Barrios, V.M.G., Gütl, C., Preis, A.M., Andrews, K., Pivec, M., Mödritscher, F., Trummer, C. (2004). Adele: a framework for adaptive e-learning through eye tracking. Proceedings of IKNOW, pp. 609–616.

  5. Bluehost. (2016). Web analytics for beginners - presented by bluehost. https://youtu.be/PnVZ7_OA7Qo.

  6. Buscher, G., Cutrell, E., Morris, M.R. (2009). What do you see when you’re surfing?: using eye tracking to predict salient regions of web pages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 21–30): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518705

  7. Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Sharif, B., Begel, A., Hansen, M., Bednarik, R., Orlov, P., Ihantola, P., Shchekotova, G., Antropova, M., et al. (2014). Eye tracking in computing education. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research(pp. 3–10): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632320.2632344

  8. Calvi, C., Porta, M., Sacchi, D. (2008). e5learning, an e-learning environment based on eye tracking. In Eighth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies, 2008. ICALT’08 (pp. 376–380): IEEE, DOI https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2008.35, (to appear in print).

  9. Canali, D., Bilge, L., Balzarotti, D. (2014). On the effectiveness of risk prediction based on users browsing behavior. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM symposium on information, computer and communications security (pp. 171–182): ACM, DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/2590296.2590347, (to appear in print).

  10. Cantoni, V., Perez, C.J., Porta, M., Ricotti, S. (2012). Exploiting eye tracking in advanced e-learning systems. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer systems and technologies (pp. 376–383): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2383276.2383331

  11. Chen, M.C., Anderson, J.R., Sohn, M.H. (2001). What can a mouse cursor tell us more?: correlation of eye/mouse movements on web browsing. In CHI’01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 281–282): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634234

  12. Chivu, R., Turlacu, L., Stoica, I., Radu, A. (2018). Identifying the effectiveness of e-learning platforms among students using eye-tracking technology. In 4th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAD’18). https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAD18.2018.8046 (pp. 621–628): Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.

  13. Chourishi, D., Buttan, C.K., Chaurasia, A., Soni, A. (2011). Effective e-learning through moodle. International Journal of Advance Technology & Engineering Research (IJATER), 1(1), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cooke, L. (2006). Is the mouse a "poor man’s eye tracker”?. In Annual conference-society for technical communication, (Vol. 53 p. 252).

  15. Demšar, U, & Çöltekin, A. (2017). Quantifying gaze and mouse interactions on spatial visual interfaces with a new movement analytics methodology. PloS one, 12(8), e0181818. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dentzel, Z. (2013). How the internet has changed everyday life. BBVA OpenMind:” Ch@ nge.

  17. Dragunova, M., Moro, R., Bielikova, M. (2017). Measuring visual search ability on the web. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on intelligent user interfaces companion (pp. 97–100): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3030024.3038272

  18. Drake, J.R., O’Hara, M., Seeman, E. (2015). Five principles for mooc design: With a case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14(14), 125–143.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Duggan, G.B., & Payne, S.J. (2011). Skim reading by satisficing: evidence from eye tracking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1141–1150): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979114

  20. Eger, L. (2018). How people acquire knowledge from a web page: an eye tracking study. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(3), 350.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ehmke, C., & Wilson, S. (2007). Identifying web usability problems from eye-tracking data. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: HCI... but not as we know it-Volume 1 (pp. 119–128): British Computer Society.

  22. Foundation, J. (2019). jquery write less, do more. https://jquery.com/.

  23. Fungai, A., & Usagawa, T. (2016). Isolating hidden recurring patterns on unlabeled access log data in learning management systems to identify drop out risk students. In 11th international student conference on advanced science and technology (pp. 9–11): Kumamoto University.

  24. Guo, Q., & Agichtein, E. (2008). Exploring mouse movements for inferring query intent. In Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 707–708 ): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1390334.1390462

  25. Guo, Q., & Agichtein, E. (2010). Towards predicting web searcher gaze position from mouse movements. In CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3601–3606): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754025

  26. Harrati, N., Bouchrika, I., Tari, A., Ladjailia, A. (2016). Exploring user satisfaction for e-learning systems via usage-based metrics and system usability scale analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. HarvardX. (2014). HarvardX Person-Course academic year 2013 de-identified dataset, version 3.0. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26147.

  28. Henrie, C.R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K.C., Graham, C.R. (2015). Exploring intensive longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2015.

  29. Holmqvist, K., & Wartenberg, C. (2005). The role of local design factors for newspaper reading behaviour-an eye-tracking perspective. Lund University Cognitive Studies, 127, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Holsanova, J., Rahm, H., Holmqvist, K. (2006). Entry points and reading paths on newspaper spreads: comparing a semiotic analysis with eye-tracking measurements. Visual Communication, 5(1), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357206061005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hsu, T.C., Chang, S.C., Liu, N.C. (2018). Peer assessment of webpage design: Behavioral sequential analysis based on eye tracking evidence. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 305–321.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hu, J., Zeng, H.J., Li, H., Niu, C., Chen, Z. (2007). Demographic prediction based on user’s browsing behavior. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 151–160 ): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1242572.1242594

  33. Huang, J., White, R.W., Dumais, S. (2011). No clicks, no problem: using cursor movements to understand and improve search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1225–1234 ): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979125

  34. Huang, J., White, R., Buscher, G. (2012). User see, user point: gaze and cursor alignment in web search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1341–1350): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208591

  35. Hyönä, J., Lorch, Jr R.F., Kaakinen, J.K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ivanović, M., Klašnja-Milićević, A., Ivković, J., Porta, M. (2017). Integration of eye tracking technologies and methods in an e-learning system. In Proceedings of the 8th Balkan conference in informatics (p. 29): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3136273.3136278

  37. Jarodzka, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2017). Tracking the reading eye: towards a model of real-world reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jarodzka, H., Holmqvist, K., Gruber, H. (2017). Eye tracking in educational science: Theoretical frameworks and research agendas Journal of Eye Movement Research 10(1). https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.10.1.3.

  39. Johnson, A., Mulder, B., Sijbinga, A., Hulsebos, L. (2012). Action as a window to perception: measuring attention with mouse movements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 802–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kakasevski, G., Mihajlov, M., Arsenovski, S., Chungurski, S. (2008). Evaluating usability in learning management system moodle. In ITI, (Vol. 2008 p. 30).

  41. Khan, S., Singh, Y., Sharma, K. (2018). Role of web usage mining technique for website structure redesign. International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology 3(1).

  42. Kim, N.W., Bylinskii, Z., Borkin, M.A., Gajos, K.Z., Oliva, A., Durand, F., Pfister, H. (2017). Bubbleview: an interface for crowdsourcing image importance maps and tracking visual attention. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 24(5), 36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Koh, K.H., Fouh, E., Farghally, M.F., Shahin, H., Shaffer, C.A. (2018). Experience: Learner analytics data quality for an etextbook system. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ), 9(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kumar, R., & Tomkins, A. (2010). A characterization of online browsing behavior. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web (pp. 561–570): ACM., https://doi.org/10.1109/ITI.2008.4588480

  45. Kuzilek, J., Hlosta, M., Zdrahal, Z. (2017). Open university learning analytics dataset. Sci Data, 4, 170171. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lagun, D., & Agichtein, E. (2011). Viewser: Enabling large-scale remote user studies of web search examination and interaction. In Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. (pp. 365–374 ): ACM.

  47. Lagun, D., Ageev, M., Guo, Q., Agichtein, E. (2014). Discovering common motifs in cursor movement data for improving web search. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 183–192): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556195.2556265

  48. Lai, M.L., Tsai, M.J., Yang, F.Y., Hsu, C.Y., Liu, T.C., Lee, S.W.Y., Lee, M.H., Chiou, G.L., Liang, J.C., Tsai, C.C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lee, R.S., Liu, J.N., Yeung, K.S., Sin, A.H., Shum, D.T. (2009). Agent-based web content engagement time (wcet) analyzer on e-publication system. In Ninth international conference on intelligent systems design and applications, 2009. ISDA’09 (pp. 67–72): IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDA.2009.189

  50. Leiva, L.A., & Huang, J. (2015). Building a better mousetrap: Compressing mouse cursor activity for web analytics. Information Processing & Management, 51 (2), 114–129. 10.1016/j.ipm.2014.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Li, L.Y., & Tsai, C.C. (2017). Accessing online learning material: Quantitative behavior patterns and their effects on motivation and learning performance. Computers & Education, 114, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Liebling, D.J., & Dumais, S.T. (2014). Gaze and mouse coordination in everyday work. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing: adjunct publication(pp. 1141–1150): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2638728.2641692

  53. Linawati, L., Wirastuti, N.D., Sukadarmika, G. (2017). Survey on lms moodle for adaptive online learning design. Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Informatics, 1(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.24843/JEEI.2017.v01.i01.p03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lupu, R.G., & Ungureanu, F. (2013). A survey of eye tracking methods and applications. Buletinul Institutului Politehnic din Iasi, Automatic Control and Computer Science Section, 3, 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Manson, S.M., Kne, L., Dyke, K.R., Shannon, J., Eria, S. (2012). Using eye-tracking and mouse metrics to test usability of web mapping navigation. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 39(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1559/1523040639148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Martín-Albo, D., Leiva, L.A., Huang, J., Plamondon, R. (2016). Strokes of insight: User intent detection and kinematic compression of mouse cursor trails. Information Processing & Management, 52(6), 989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Maruya, K., Watanabe, J., Takahashi, H., Hashiba, S. (2015). A learning system utilizing learners’ active tracing behaviors. In Proceedings of the Fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 418–419): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723655

  59. Mind, S. (2019). The top 10 best web analytic tools. https://www.sparringmind.com/best-web-analytics/.

  60. Moodle. (2016). Logs. https://docs.moodle.org/36/en/Logs.

  61. Mueller, F., & Lockerd, A. (2001). Cheese: tracking mouse movement activity on websites, a tool for user modeling. In CHI’01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 279–280): ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634233

  62. Nakano, H., Iriguchi, N., Sugitani, K., Kita, T., Musashi, Y., Migita, M., Matsuba, R., Ohta, Y., Gobayashi, T., Tsuji, K., et al. (2005). The instructional effects of on-line tests on the large-scale it courses. In 6th international conference on information technology based higher education and training, 2005. ITHET 2005 (pp. F4B–7): IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2005.1560304

  63. Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., Harland, J., Warburton, G. (2011). How active are students in online discussion forums?. In Proceedings of the thirteenth australasian computing education conference-volume, (Vol. 114 pp. 125–134): Australian Computer Society Inc.

  64. Natividad, J. (2018). Monthly page views for city archives digital repository. Data.world, Inc.

  65. Navalpakkam, V., & Churchill, E. (2012). Mouse tracking: measuring and predicting users’ experience of web-based content. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2963–2972): ACM, DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208705, (to appear in print).

  66. NT, B. (2015). Top 10 heatmap analytics tools for marketers. https://bigdata-madesimple.com/top-10-heatmap-analytics-tools-for-marketers/.

  67. Parikh, S., & Kalva, H. (2018). Eye gaze feature classification for predicting levels of learning. In Kravcik, M., Santos, OC, Boticario, JG, Bielikova, M., Horvath, T., Torre I. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th workshop on personalization approaches in learning environments (PALE 2018). 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2018), CEUR workshop proceedings, this volume, pp 1–6.

  68. Paturusi, S.D., Chisaki, Y., Usagawa, T. (2012). Development and evaluation of the blended learningcourses at sam ratulangi university in Indonesia. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(3), 242.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Pernice, K. (2017). F-shaped pattern of reading on the web: Misunderstood, but still relevant (even on mobile). Nielsen Norman Group.

  70. Pivec, M., Trummer, C., Pripfl, J. (2006). Eye-tracking adaptable e-learning and content authoring support. Informatica, 30(1).

  71. Poon, L.K., Kong, S.C., Yau, T.S., Wong, M., Ling, M.H. (2017). Learning analytics for monitoring students participation online: Visualizing navigational patterns on learning management system. In International conference on blended learning (pp. 166–176): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59360-9_15

  72. Purnama, F. (2019). 0fajarpurnama0/real-time-online-mouse-tracking-animation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2589338. https://github.com/0fajarpurnama0/Real-Time-Online-Mouse-Tracking-Animation.

  73. Purnama, F., Fungai, A., Do, T.M., Siagian, A.H.A.M., Annas, A., Susanto, H., Hendarmawan, Usagawa, T., Nakano, H. (2016a). Introductory work on section based page view of web contents: Towards the idea of how a page is viewed. In 11Th international student conference on advanced science and technology (ICAST) (pp. 9–11): Kumamoto University.

  74. Purnama, F., Fungai, A., Usagawa, T. (2016b). Demonstration on extending the pageview feature to page section based: Towards identifying reading patterns of users. In 7th International conference on science and engineering (pp. 304–307): Yangon Technological University.

  75. Purnama, F., Sukhbaatar, O., Choimaa, L., Usagawa, T. (2020). Data for: Implementation of real-time online mouse tracking case study in a small online quiz. https://doi.org/10.17632/vznyfcx9xk.4, mendeley Data, v3.

  76. Rakoczi, G., & Pohl, M. (2012). Visualisation and analysis of multiuser gaze data: Eye tracking usability studies in the special context of e-learning. In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 738–739): IEEE, DOI https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2012.15, (to appear in print).

  77. Ramakrisnan, P., Jaafar, A., Razak, F.H.A., Ramba, D.A. (2012). Evaluation of user interface design for leaning management system (lms): Investigating student’s eye tracking pattern and experiences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Reynolds, S. (2018). Nasa website data 1995. Data.world, Inc.

  81. Rheem, H., Verma, V., Becker, D.V. (2018). Use of mouse-tracking method to measure cognitive load. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, (Vol. 62 pp. 1982–1986). Sage: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621449

  82. Rodden, K., & Fu, X. (2007). Exploring how mouse movements relate to eye movements on web search results pages. In SIGIR Workshop on Web information seeking and interaction (pp. 29–32).

  83. Rodden, K., Fu, X., Aula, A., Spiro, I. (2008). Eye-mouse coordination patterns on web search results pages. In CHI’08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 2997–3002): ACM.

  84. Rodrigues, M., Gonçalves, S, Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Fdez-Riverola, F. (2013). Keystrokes and clicks: Measuring stress on e-learning students. In Management intelligent systems (pp. 119–126 ): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00569-0_15

  85. Salmeron-Majadas, S., Santos, O.C., Boticario, J.G. (2014). An evaluation of mouse and keyboard interaction indicators towards non-intrusive and low cost affective modeling in an educational context. Procedia Computer Science, 35, 691–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Sin, K., & Muthu, L. (2015). Application of big data in education data mining and learning analytics–a literature review. ICTACT Journal on Soft Computing, 5(4).

  87. Sopu, H.T., Chisaki, Y., Usagawa, T. (2016). Use of facebook by secondary school students at nuku’alofa as an indicator of e-readiness for e-learning in the kingdom of tonga. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2333.

  88. Sungkur, R.K., Antoaroo, M.A., Beeharry, A. (2016). Eye tracking system for enhanced learning experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1785–1806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9418-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Tarasewich, P., Pomplun, M., Fillion, S., Broberg, D. (2005). The enhanced restricted focus viewer. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19 (1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1901_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tsai, M.J., Hou, H.T., Lai, M.L., Liu, W.Y., Yang, F.Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: an eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 58(1), 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Tzafilkou, K., & Protogeros, N. (2017). Diagnosing user perception and acceptance using eye tracking in web-based end-user development. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Usagawa, T., Sugitani, K., Kita, T., Iriguchi, N., Migita, M., Matsuba, R., Musashi, Y., Nakano, H. (2006). Assuring the basic it literacy levels for every student by the university-wide blended learning. In Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, 2006. ITHET’06. 7th International Conference on (pp. 647–651): IEEE, DOI https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2006.339680, (to appear in print).

  93. Voßkühler, A., Nordmeier, V., Kuchinke, L., Jacobs, A.M. (2008). Ogama (open gaze and mouse analyzer): open-source software designed to analyze eye and mouse movements in slideshow study designs. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (4), 1150–1162. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Wagner, E. (2019). Internet data usage guide. https://www.whistleout.com/Internet/Guides/Internet-usage-guide.

  95. Wang, H., Chignell, M., Ishizuka, M. (2006). Empathic tutoring software agents using real-time eye tracking. In Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications (pp. 73–78): ACM, DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/1117309.1117346, (to appear in print).

  96. Wei, H., Moldovan, A.N., Muntean, C. (2009). Sensing learner interest through eye tracking. Technology 22:23rd.

  97. Wen, M., & Rosé, C.P. (2014). Identifying latent study habits by mining learner behavior patterns in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 1983–1986): ACM, DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/2661829.2662033, (to appear in print).

  98. Yang, F.Y., Tsai, M.J., Chiou, G.L., Lee, S.W.Y., Chang, C.C., Chen, L.L. (2018). Instructional suggestions supporting science learning in digital environments based on a review of eye tracking studies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 28–45.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Zheng, C., & Usagawa, T. (2018). A rapid webcam-based eye tracking method for human computer interaction. In 2018 International Conference on Control, Automation and Information Sciences (ICCAIS) (pp. 133–136): IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAIS.2018.8570532

  100. Zushi, M., Miyazaki, Y., Norizuki, K. (2012). Web application for recording learners’ mouse trajectories and retrieving their study logs for data analysis. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 4(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2012.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Muhammad Bagus Andra, Hamidullah Sokout, Irwansyah, and members of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, National University of Mongolia, for participating in the experiment. The authors would also like to thank Masayoshi Aritsugi, Hendarmawan, Hamidullah Sokout, Alhafiz Akbar Maulana, and Sari Dewi for inspiring this research topic. A special thanks to Muhammad Bagus Andra and Ni Nyoman Sri Indrawati for suggesting some interesting ideas. The authors would also like to thank Fahd Ouassarni for providing suggestions with respect to compressing the mouse tracking application codes. Finally, the authors would like to thank Alvin Fungai for initiating this research and for his assistance in proofreading.

Funding

Part of this work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 19H1225100 and 15H02795.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fajar Purnama.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Mendeley repository titled ’Data for: Implementation of Real-Time Online Mouse Tracking Case Study in a Small Online Quiz’ (Purnama et al. 2020).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Purnama, F., Sukhbaatar, O., Choimaa, L. et al. Implementation of real-time online mouse tracking on overseas quiz session. Educ Inf Technol 25, 3845–3880 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10141-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mouse tracking
  • Online
  • Real time
  • Large open implementation
  • Resource cost