Collaborative Gaze Footprints: Correlates of Interaction Quality

Dual eye tracking offers new possibilities for the analysis and diagnosis of collaborative interaction. Cross-recurrence analyses and visualizations offer insight into how closely two collaborators’ gaze follow each other. We contrast two cases to illustrate how gaze cross-recurrence can be used as a correlate of high and low quality interaction. The intriguing graphical patterns that result from the time coupled traces of the collaborators’ fixations are footprints of the quality of the interaction. Good quality interaction features a higher recurrence rate than low quality interaction. The graphical structure of the recurrence plots indicates whether collaborators divide labor and whether they are sharing visual attention.

[1]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving , 1995 .

[2]  Alejandra Martínez-Monés,et al.  From Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning , 2005, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[3]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[4]  Tammy Schellens,et al.  Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Paul E. Levy,et al.  Moving from Cognition to Action: A Control Theory Perspective , 1994 .

[6]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Common objects for productive multivocality in analysis , 2009, CSCL.

[7]  Markku Tukiainen,et al.  A method to study visual attention aspects of collaboration: eye-tracking pair programmers simultaneously , 2008, ETRA.

[8]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Deixis and gaze in collaborative work at a distance (over a shared map): a computational model to detect misunderstandings , 2008, ETRA.

[9]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  The Art of Conversation Is Coordination , 2007, Psychological science.

[10]  Patrick Jermann,et al.  Collaboration and abstract representations: towards predictive models based on raw speech and eye-tracking data , 2009, CSCL.

[11]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  Looking To Understand: The Coupling Between Speakers' and Listeners' Eye Movements and Its Relationship to Discourse Comprehension , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Nikolaos Avouris,et al.  Analyzing Collaborative Interactions Across Domains and Settings: An Adaptable Rating Scheme , 2011 .

[13]  N. Rummel,et al.  Learning to Collaborate: An Instructional Approach to Promoting Collaborative Problem Solving in Computer-Mediated Settings , 2005 .

[14]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Content analysis: What are they talking about? , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[15]  J F Artusio.  A method of study. , 1969, Clinical anesthesia.

[16]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Categorical Recurrence Analysis of Child Language , 2005 .

[17]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[18]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  This is it ! : Indicating and looking in collaborative work at distance , 2010 .

[19]  PuntambekarSadhana.  Analyzing collaborative interactions , 2006 .

[20]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  Nominal Cross Recurrence as a Generalized Lag Sequential Analysis for Behavioral Streams , 2011, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.

[21]  W. Firestone.  Alternative Arguments for Generalizing From Data as Applied to Qualitative Research , 1993 .