Collaborative gaze footprints: Correlates of interaction quality

Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL 2011 Conference Proceedings - Long Papers, 9th International Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2011, Pages 184-191

  Jermann, Patrick ^a   Mullins, Dejana ^b   Nüssli, Marc Antoine ^a   Dillenbourg, Pierre ^a  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION; CROSS-RECURRENCE ANALYSIS; EYE-TRACKING; GRAPHICAL PATTERNS; GRAPHICAL STRUCTURES; INTERACTION FEATURES; INTERACTION QUALITY; LOW QUALITIES; RECURRENCE PLOT; VISUAL ATTENTION;

VISUALIZATION;

EID: 84858418038     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Cherubini, M., Nüssli, M.-A., & 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 International Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA2008), p. 173-180. ACM Press, 2008.
2. Cherubini, M., Nüssli, M-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Indicating and looking in collaborative work at distance. Journal of Eye Movement Research 3(5):3, 1-205.
3. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In Resnik, L. B., Levine, J. M. & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared Cognition. Washington: APA Books.
4. Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J. (2006). Categorical recurrence analysis of child language. Language Learning.
5. Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., & Richardson, D. C. (in press). Nominal cross recurrence as a generalized lag sequential analysis for behavioral streams. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos.
6. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers and Education, 46, 6-28. (Pubitemid 41562935)
7. Diziol, D., Rummel, N., Kahrimanis, G., Guevara, T., Holz, J., Spada, H., & Fiotakis, G. (2008). Using contrasting cases to better understand the relationship between students' interactions and their learning outcome. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P.A. Kirschner, & F. Prins (Eds.), International perspectives of the learning sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008), Vol 3 (pp. 348-349). ISLS
8. Eckmann, J.-P., Kamphorst, S.O., & Ruelle, D. (1987) Europhys. Lett. 5, 973.
9. Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative researh. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
10. Lord, R. G., & Levy, P. E. (1994). Moving from Cognition to Action: A Control Theory Perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43(3), 335-398.
11. 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, 63-86.
12. 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 CSCL '09: Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning. ISLS, 2009.
13. Pietinen, S., Bednarik, R., Glotova, T., Tenhunen, V., & Tukiainen, M. (2008) A method to study visual attention aspects of collaboration: eye-tracking pair programmers simultaneously. In Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications (ETRA '08) (pp. 39-42): ACM, New York, NY, USA.
14. 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, 1045-1060. (Pubitemid 43432316)
15. Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., and 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.
16. Roschelle, J., & Teasley S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning. (pp. 69-197). Berlin: Springer-Verlag
17. Rummel, N., Deiglmayr, A., Spada, H., & Kahrimanis, G. (2011). Analyzing collaborative interactions across domains and settings: an adaptable rating scheme. In: S.Puntambekar, C. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methodologies, approaches and issues. (pp. 367-390) New York: Springer.
18. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241. (Pubitemid 40551445)
19. Soller, A., Martinez, A., Jermann, P., & Mühlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of the state of art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 261-290.
20. Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46, 29-48. (Pubitemid 41562936)
21. Suthers, D., Law, N., Lund, K., Rose, C., & Teplovs, C. (2009). Common objects for productive multivocality in analysis. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices - CSCL 2009 Conference Proceedings, (pp. 225-226). International Society of the Learning Sciences.