Skip to main content

Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality

Abstract

In this paper we present the results of an eye-tracking study on collaborative problem-solving dyads. Dyads remotely collaborated to learn from contrasting cases involving basic concepts about how the human brain processes visual information. In one condition, dyads saw the eye gazes of their partner on the screen; in a control group, they did not have access to this information. Results indicated that this real-time mutual gaze perception intervention helped students achieve a higher quality of collaboration and a higher learning gain. Implications for supporting group collaboration are discussed.

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

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

Notes

  1. Attentional alignment is also established partly by body position and orientation (Kendon 1990).

  2. It should be noted that this study did not employ empirical measures of extroversion or introversion to arrive at these characterizations.

  3. The text used in the second part of the study is accessible here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98921800 (last access: 03/08/2013). Originally retrieved from Washington University in St-Louis (http://thalamus.wustl.edu/).

References

  • Alavi, H. S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012). An ambient awareness tool for supporting supervised collaborative problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(3), 264–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachour, K., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). An interactive table for supporting participation balance in face-to-face collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(3), 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother-infant and peer-infant interaction. Child Development, 55(4), 1278–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, D. A. (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development,62(5), 874–890.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., & Roschelle, J. (2009). Shared cognition. In E. Anderman (Ed.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (pp. 819–823). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., Pea, R. D., & Engle, R. (2013). Advancing understanding of collaborative learning with data derived from video records. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. O’Donnell, C. Chinn, & C. Chan (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 203–219). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E., Thal, D., Whitesell, K., Fenson, L., & Oakes, L. (1989). Integrating language and gesture in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 1004–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J. (1982). Task evoked pupillary responses, processing load and structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J., & Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2000). Pupillary system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 640–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, P. (2002). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106(3), 1465–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Swettenham, J., Baird, G., Cox, A., & Drew, A. (2000). Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 15(4), 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubini, M., Nüssli, M., and 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 (Savannah, Georgia, March 26–28, 2008). ETRA ‘08. (pp. 173–180). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, R., & Cline, T. S. (1901). The angle velocity of eye movements. Psychological Review, 8(2), 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. Springer

  • Hanna, J. E., & Brennan, S. E. (2007). Speakers’ eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, R. J., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., Mullins, D., Nuessli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2001). Collaborative gaze footprints: correlates of interaction quality. In Spada, H., Stahl, G., Miyake, N., & Law, N. (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings, Hong Kong, July 4–8, 2011, Volume I - Long Papers, (pp. 184–191).

  • Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T., & Pentland, A. (2009, March). Understanding effects of feedback on group collaboration. In Proc. of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Human Behavior Modeling (pp. 1–6).

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leudar, I., Costall, A., & Francis, D. (2004). Theory of mind: A critical assessment. Theory & Psychology, 14(5), 571–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., & Pea, R. (2012). Inter-identity technologies for learning. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 427–434). Sydney: Australia.

  • Liu, Y., Hsueh, P.Y., Lai, J., Sangin, M., Nussli, M.-A., Dillenbourg, P. (2009, June). Who is the expert? Analyzing gaze data to predict expertise level in collaborative applications. Proc. of IEEE Int. Conference on Multimedia and Expo: ICME 2009 (898–901).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mundy, P., Sigman, M., & Kasari, C. (1990). A longitudinal study of joint attention and language development in autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nüssli, M. A., Jermann, P., Sangin, M., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Collaboration and abstract representations: Towards predictive models based on raw speech and eye-tracking data. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 78–82).

  • Pea, R. D. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), 639–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1998). The language and thought of the child. Routledge: Psychology Press.

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007). The art of conversation is coordination: Common ground and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue. Psychological Science, 18(5), 407–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, K. J. (1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1(1), 43–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational research, 13(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangin, M. (2009). Peer knowledge modeling in computer supported collaborative learning. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/133637. Last access: 03/08/2013.

  • Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition & Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaer, O., Strait, M., Valdes, C., Feng, T., Lintz, M., & Wang, H. (2011, May). Enhancing genomic learning through tabletop interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2817–2826). New York: ACM.

  • Sheingold, K., Hawkins, J., & Char, C. (1984). “I’m the thinkist, you’re the typist”: The interaction of technology and the social life of classrooms. Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stem, D. (1977). The first relationship. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotski, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertrand Schneider.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schneider, B., Pea, R. Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 8, 375–397 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9181-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9181-4

Keywords

  • Collaborative learning
  • Awareness tool
  • Eye-tracking