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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge Univeresity Press.
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
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.
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.
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
Ben-Zvi, D., & Sfard, A. (2007). Ariadne’s thread, Daedalus’ wings and the learners autonomy. Éducation Et Didactique, 1(3), 73–91.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Blackwell.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Pólya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed). Princeton University Press.
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.
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
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.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. Cambridge University Press.
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.
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
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
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
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.
This research is a part of MathTrack project that is funded by the Academy of Finland (Grant Number 297856).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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.
About this article
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
- Eye tracking
- Gaze tracking
- Discourse analysis
- Social interactions
- Subjectifying and mathematizing