Advertisement

Eye Tracking as a Tool to Study and Enhance Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes in Computer-Based Learning Environments

Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the use of eye tracking to assess cognitive and metacognitive processes and cognitive load in computer-based learning environments. Benefits of eye tracking for studying such processes are discussed (e.g., the very detailed information it provides on where a participant was looking, in what order, and for how long), but also limitations (e.g., that detailed information does not tell one which processes exactly are occurring; this has to be inferred by the researcher). In addition, this chapter provides examples of how eye tracking can be used to improve the design of instruction in computer-based learning environments, both indirectly and directly. For example, an indirect way would be to use the information on experts’ or successful performers’ viewing patterns to adapt instructions prior to a task (e.g., emphasizing what should be attended to later on) or to adapt the format of the task (e.g., cueing attention). A more direct way would be to display experts’ or successful performers’ eye movements overlaid onto the instructional materials. In the discussion, the opportunities provided by eye tracking, but also the technical challenges it poses are addressed.

Keywords

Cognitive Load Pupil Dilation Attention Allocation Confidence Judgment Corneal Reflection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

During the realization of this work, Tamara van Gog was supported by a Veni grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO; # 451-08-003).

References

  1. Amadieu, F., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbato, G., De Padova, V., Paolillo, A. R., Arpaia, L., Russo, E., & Ficca, G. (2007). Increased spontaneous eye blink rate following prolonged wakefulness. Physiology & Behavior, 90, 151–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boucheix, J.-M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Meeuwen, L., & Van Gog, T. (2008). The use of evaluation criteria when searching the WWW: An eye-tracking study. In A. Maes & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Proceedings EARLI Special Interest Group Text and Graphics ‘Exploiting the opportunities: Learning with textual, graphical, and multimodal representations’ (pp. 34–37). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  6. Buscher, G., Cutrell, E., & Morris, M. R. (2009). What do you see when you’re surfing? Using eye tracking to predict salient regions of the web pages. In Procee­dings of the 27th CHI conference (pp. 21–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Castet, E., & Masson, G. S. (2000). Motion perception during saccadic eye movements. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charness, N., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1146–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conati, C., Merten, C., Muldner, K., & Ternes, D. (2005). Exploring eye tracking to increase bandwidth in user modeling. In L. Ardissono, P. Brna, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), User modeling 2005: 10th international conference (pp. 357–367). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20(9), 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodge, R. (1903). Five types of eye movements in the horizontal meridian plane of the field of regard. The American Journal of Psychology, 8, 307–329.Google Scholar
  14. Duchowski, A. T. (2003). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revth ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Folker, S., Sichelschmidt, L., & Ritter, H. (2005). Processing and integrating multimodal material: The influence of color-coding. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 690–695). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Gluck, K. A., Anderson, J. R., & Douglass, S. (2000). Broader bandwidth in student modeling: What if ITS were “Eye”TS? Intelligent Tutoring Systems—Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1839, 504–513.Google Scholar
  19. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Olde, B. A., Cooper-Pye, E., & Whitten, S. (2005). Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices break down. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1235–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14, 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the information reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 172–190.Google Scholar
  22. Hannus, M., & Hÿonä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen, J. P. (1991). The use of eye mark recordings to support verbal retrospection in software testing. Acta Psychologica, 76, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Holsanova, J. (2008). Discourse, vision, and cognition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyönä, J., Tommola, J., & Alaja, A.-M. (1995). Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 48, 598–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jarodzka, H., Janssen, N., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (submitted). Avoiding split attention in computer-based testing: Is neglecting additional information facilitative? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  30. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jarodzka, H., van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K. & Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning to see: Guiding students’ attention via a model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learning and Instruction, 25, 62–70.Google Scholar
  32. Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154, 1583–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2010). How the interface design influences users’ spontaneous trustworthiness evaluations of web search results: Comparing a list and a grid interface. In C. Morimoto & H. Instance (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications ETRA’10 (pp. 299–306). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karpf, D. (1973). Thinking aloud in human discrimination learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high- and low-achieving primary school children’s reading. Learning and Instruction, 5, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klingner, J., Tversky, B., & Hanrahan, P. (2010). Effects of visual and verbal presentation on cognitive load in vigilance, memory, and arithmetic tasks. Psychophysiology, 48, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kostons, D., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2009). How do I do? Investigating effects of expertise and performance-process records on self-assessment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1256–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuusela, H., & Paul, P. (2000). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 113, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Land, M., & Tatler, B. (2009). Looking and acting: Vision and eye movements in natural behaviour. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Litchfield, D., Ball, L. J., Donovan, T., Manning, D. J., & Crawford, T. (2010). Viewing another person’s eye movements improves identification of pulmonary nodules in chest x-ray inspection. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 16, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Lu, S. (2009). Embodied conversational agents as conversational partners. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1244–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McLaren, B. M., Lim, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). When and how often should worked examples be given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2176–2181). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  45. Merten, C., & Conati, C. (2006). Eye-tracking to model and adapt to user meta-cognition in intelligent learning environments. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (IUI ‘06), (pp. 39–46). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507–523). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Arib, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ozcelik, E., Karakus, T., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2009). An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning. Computers in Education, 53, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Papenmeier, F., & Huff, M. (2010). DynAOI: A tool for matching eye-movement data with dynamic areas of interest in animations and movies. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reichle, E. D., Reineberg, A. E., & Schooler, J. W. (2010). Eye movements during mindless reading. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1300–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richardson, D. C., & Spivey, M. (2004). Eye tracking: Characteristics and methods. In G. Wnek & G. Bowlin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of biomaterials and biomedical engineering (pp. 568–572). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Roderer, T., & Roebers, C. M. (2010). Explicit and implicit confidence judgments and developmental differences in metamemory: An eye-tracking approach. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17, 759–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M. -A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). How learners use awareness cues about their peer’s knowledge? Insights from synchronized eye-tracking data. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the Learning Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 287–294). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  58. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smilek, D., Carriere, J. S. A., & Cheyne, J. A. (2010). Out of mind, out of sight: Eye blinking as an indicator and embodiment of mind wandering. Psychological Science, 21, 786–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stelmach, L. B., Campsall, J. M., & Herdman, C. M. (1997). Attentional and ocular movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 23, 823–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Brocklehurst, N., Underwood, J., & Crundall, D. (2003). Visual attention while driving: Sequences of eye fixations made by experienced and novice drivers. Ergonomics, 46, 629–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology, 41, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Gog, T. (2006). Uncovering the problem-solving process to design effective worked examples. Doctoral Dissertation, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005a). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Witte, P. (2005b). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 11, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Someren, M., Barnard, Y., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  71. Velichkovsky, B. M. (1995). Communicating attention: Gaze position transfer in cooperative problem solving. Pragmatics and Cognition, 3, 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wade, N. J., & Tatler, B. (2005). The moving tablet of the eye: The origins of modern eye movement research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational PsychologyInstitute of Psychology, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Center for Learning Sciences and TechnologiesOpen University of The NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations