Skip to main content

What can eye-tracking, combined with discourse analysis, teach us about the ineffectiveness of a group of students solving a geometric problem?

Instructional Science (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

We present the analysis of an episode of mathematical problem solving in a group, where data came from multiple advanced recorders, including multiple video cameras, Smartpen recorders, and mobile eye tracking glasses. Analysis focused on a particular group that was ineffective in their problem-solving process. Relying on the commognitive theory of learning on the one hand, and on quantitative descriptors of eye-tracking data on the other hand, we ask how do the interpretations of the discourse analysis and gaze data complement each other in understanding the obstacles to problem-solving in this episode. The setting included four Finnish 9th grade students solving a geometrical problem in the students’ authentic mathematics classroom. The commognitive analysis revealed intensive social communication (subjectifying) along with the mathematical one (mathematizing), which seemed to interfere with the problem-solving process. Specifically, it masked the differences in students’ interpretation of the tasks, and did not allow explication of meta-rules according to which students endorsed mathematical claims. Diagrams of quantified gaze data enabled a more macro-level picture of the full 15 min interaction, revealing differential loci of attention of the group members and thus triangulating the micro-analysis.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • Andersson, A., & Wagner, D. (2019). Identities available in intertwined discourses: Mathematics student interaction. ZDM - Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01036-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge Univeresity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0902_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, P., & McConnel, J. (2019). Eye tracking methodology for studying teacher learning: A review of the research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(5), 285–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Dor, N., & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2021). Standing on each other’s shoulders: A case of coalescence between geometric discourses in peer interaction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, D., & Sfard, A. (2007). Ariadne’s thread, Daedalus’ wings and the learners autonomy. Éducation Et Didactique, 1(3), 73–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 171–200). Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. C. E., & Sfard, A. (2020). On learning that could have happened: The same tale in two cities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 60, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-87144-2.50008-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Moreno-Esteva, E., & Hannula, M. S. (2015). Using gaze tracking technology to study student visual attention during teacher’s presentation on board. In K. Krainer, & N. Vondrová (Eds.), CERME 9 - proceedings of the ninth congress of the European society for research in mathematics education: Feb 2015, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 1393–1399). Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education and ERME. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01287672/document

  • Garcia Moreno-Esteva, E. Salminen-Saari, J., Toivanen, M., Hannula, M. (2019). A picture is worth a thousand words: visualizing collaboration through gaze synchrony graphs. Eleventh congress of the European society for research in mathematics education, Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands

  • Garcia Moreno-Esteva, E., Kervinen, A., Hannula, M. S., & Uitto, A. (2020). Scanning signatures: A graph theoretical model to represent visual scanning processes and a proof of concept study in biology education. Education Sciences, 10(5), 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 523–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Galbraith, P. L., & Renshaw, P. D. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gullberg, M., & Holmqvist, K. (1999). Keeping an eye on gestures: Visual perception of gestures in face-to-face communication. Pragmatics and Cognition, 7, 35–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haataja, E. (2021). Understanding the role of gaze in momentary teacher-student scaffolding interaction during collaborative problem solving. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-6947-1

  • Haataja, E., Garcia Moreno-Esteva, E., Salonen, V., Laine, A., Toivanen, M., & Hannula, M. S. (2019). Teacher’s visual attention when scaffolding collaborative mathematical problem solving. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haataja, E., Salonen, V., Laine, A., Toivanen, M., & Hannula, M. S. (2020). The relation between teacher-student eye contact and teachers’ interpersonal behavior during group work: A multiple-person gaze-tracking case study in secondary mathematics education. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09538-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (2012). Positioning theory: moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In the oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 191–206). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Meaney, T., Bishop, J. P., & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2017). Highlighting heritages and building tasks: A critical analysis of literature on mathematics classroom discourse. In J. Cai (Ed.), First compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 722–765). NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Wagner, D., Johnson, K. R., Suh, H., & Figueras, H. (2015). Positioning in mathematics education: Revelations on an imported theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89, 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., & Cooper, J. (2022). When the problem seems answerable yet the solution is unavailable: affective reactions around an impasse in mathematical discourse. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00172-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., & Sfard, A. (2012). Identity struggles in the mathematics classroom: On learning mathematics as an interplay of mathematizing and identifying. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52, 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, K., & Andersson, R. (2017). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods, paradigms and measures. Lund Eye-Tracking Research Intsitute.

  • Hyrskykari, A., Ovaska, S., Majaranta, P., Räihä, K.-J., & Lehtinen, M. (2008). Gaze path stimulation in retrospective think-aloud. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(4), 118. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.2.4.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabugo, D., Muyinda, P. B., Masagazi, F., Mugagga, A. M., & Mulumba, M. B. (2016). Tracking students’ eye-movements when reading learning objects on mobile phones: A discourse analysis of Luganda language teacher-trainees’ reflective observations. Journal of Learning for Development, 3(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E., & Dochy, F. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educational Research Review, 10, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M. L., Tsai, M. J., Yang, F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lausberg, H., & Sloetjes, H. (2009). Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 41(3), 841–849. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, I., Steiner, A., & Sfard, A. (2019) Routines we live by: from ritual to exploration. Educational Studies in Mathematics 101(2) 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9817-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, N. A., Jarodzka, H., & Klassen, R. M. (2019). Capturing teacher priorities: Using real-world eye-tracking to investigate expert teacher priorities across two cultures. Learning and Instruction, 60, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munson, J. (2019). After eliciting: Variation in elementary mathematics teachers’ discursive pathways during collaborative problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 56, 100736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.100736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myllyneva, A., & Hietanen, J. K. (2015). The dual nature of eye contact: To see and to be seen. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), 1089–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pólya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosales, J., Vicente, S., Chamoso, J., Muñeza, D., & Orrantia, J. (2012). Teacher–student interaction in joint word problem solving: The role of situational and mathematical knowledge in mainstream classrooms. Teachcing and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1185–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salminen-Saari, J. F. A., Garcia Moreno-Esteva, E., Haataja, E., Toivanen, M., Hannula, M. S., & Laine, A. (2021). Phases of collaborative mathematical problem solving and joint attention: A case study utilizing mobile gaze tracking. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(4), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01280-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strohmaier, A. R., MacKay, K. J., Obersteiner, A., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). Eye-tracking methodology in mathematics education research: A systematic literature review. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104(2), 147–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09948-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toivanen, M., Lukander, K., & Puolamäki, K. (2017). Probabilistic approach to robust wearable gaze tracking. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.10.4.2

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, M., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. & Band, R. (2021). Mathematical Activity in Collaborative Linear-Algebra Problem-Solving. In: Inprasitha, M., Changsri, N. & Boonsena, N. (Eds). Proceedings of the 44th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Khon Kaen, Thailand: PME.

  • Watson, J. M., & Chick, H. I. (2001). Factors influencing the outcomes of collaborative mathematical problem solving: An introduction. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(2–3), 125–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2001.9679971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram Research. (2021a). www.wolfram.com/mathematica

  • Wolfram Research (2021b). reference.wolfram.com/language/guide/GraphsAndNetworks.html

  • Wood, M. B., & Kalinec, C. A. (2012). Student talk and opportunities for mathematical learning in small group interactions. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52, 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is a part of MathTrack project that is funded by the Academy of Finland (Grant Number 297856).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Einat Heyd-Metzuyanim

  2. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Eeva S. H. Haataja, Markku S. Hannula & Enrique Garcia Moreno-Esteva

Authors
  1. Einat Heyd-Metzuyanim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eeva S. H. Haataja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markku S. Hannula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Enrique Garcia Moreno-Esteva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Einat Heyd-Metzuyanim.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Full analytical tables of all students’ solutions

See Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Table 4 Mary’s solutions
Full size table
Table 5 Luke’s solutions
Full size table
Table 6 Viola’s solutions
Full size table
Table 7 Nabila’s solutions
Full size table
Table 8 Other students’ solutions presented during whole-classroom discussion
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Haataja, E.S.H., Hannula, M.S. et al. What can eye-tracking, combined with discourse analysis, teach us about the ineffectiveness of a group of students solving a geometric problem?. Instr Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09617-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09617-9

Keywords

  • Eye tracking
  • Gaze tracking
  • Discourse analysis
  • Commognition
  • Affect
  • Social interactions
  • Subjectifying and mathematizing