What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of quantifying learners’ collaborative behaviors with high-frequency data? To provide preliminary answers to this question, I conduct a literature review on joint visual attention (JVA) in collaborative learning settings, analyzed through the lens of sensing technologies. JVA is a fundamental mechanism for establishing a common ground between individuals; without it, it would be extremely challenging for humans to synchronize their actions, understand each other’s perspectives, strive toward shared objectives, collaboratively resolve challenges, and learn together. I collected 69 papers that have studied joint attention with sensing technology (e.g., eye-trackers) and synthesized the state of the field. The main contribution of this paper is to review six measures of joint attention extracted from high-frequency gaze data, their connection to seven educational constructs, six benefits of using sensors, and seven research gaps to inform future work. I conclude with implications for using high-frequency data in educational settings.
AbdelrahmanA. A.HempelT.KhalifaA.Al-HamadiA.DingesL. (2023, October). L2cs-net: Fine-grained gaze estimation in unconstrained environments [Conference session]. 2023 8th International Conference on Frontiers of Signal Processing (ICFSP) (pp. 98–102). IEEE.
2.
AhujaK.ShahD.PareddyS.XhakajF.OganA.AgarwalY.HarrisonC. (2021, May). Classroom digital twins with instrumentation-free gaze tracking [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan (pp. 1–9). Association for Computing Machinery.
3.
AndersonT.ShattuckJ. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?Educational researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
4.
*AndristS.GleicherM.MutluB. (2017). Looking coordinated: Bidirectional gaze mechanisms for collaborative interaction with virtual characters [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO (pp. 2571–2582). Association for Computing Machinery.
5.
*AndristS.RuisA. R.ShafferD. W. (2018). A network analytic approach to gaze coordination during a collaborative task. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.017
BatesE.ThalD.WhitesellK.FensonL.OakesL. (1989). Integrating language and gesture in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 1004–1019. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.6.1004
8.
*BelenkyD.RingenbergM.OlsenJ.AlevenV.RummelN. (2014, July23–26). Using dual eye-tracking to evaluate students’ collaboration with an intelligent tutoring system for elementary-level fractions. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Quebec City, Canada.
9.
*BeyanC.CarissimiN.CapozziF.VasconS.BustreoM.PierroA.BecchioC.MurinoV. (2016). Detecting emergent leader in a meeting environment using nonverbal visual features only [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI 2016, Tokyo, Japan (pp. 317–324). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993148.2993175
10.
*BhattacharyaI.FoleyM.ZhangN.ZhangT.KuC.MineC.JiH.RiedlC.WellesB. F.RadkeR. J. (2018). A multimodal-sensor-enabled room for unobtrusive group meeting analysis [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Boulder CO (pp. 347–355). Association for Computing Machinery.
11.
BiedermanI.ShiffrarM. 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.
12.
BransfordJ. D.SchwartzD. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100.
13.
*BrennanS. E.ChenX.DickinsonC. A.NeiderM. B.ZelinskyG. J. (2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106(3), 1465–1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.012
14.
ButterworthG. (1995). Origins of minds in perception and action. In MooreC.DunhamP. J. (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 29–40). Erlbaum.
15.
CarpenterM.LiebalK. (2011). Joint attention, communication, and knowing together in infancy. In SeemannA. (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 159–181). MIT Press.
16.
*CherubiniM.NüssliM. A.DillenbourgP. (2008). Deixis and gaze in collaborative work at a distance (over a shared map): A computational model to detect misunderstandings. Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, Savannah, GA (pp. 173–180). ACM.
17.
ClarkH. H. (1985). Language use and language users. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 179–231). Harper and Row.
18.
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006
19.
D’AngeloS.GergleD. (2016, May). Gazed and confused: Understanding and designing shared gaze for remote collaboration [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2492–2496), San Jose, CA. Association for Computing Machinery.
20.
D’AngeloS.SchneiderB. (2021). Shared gaze visualizations in collaborative interactions: Past, present and future. Interacting with Computers, 33(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwcomp/iwab015
21.
*DierkerA.MertesC.HermannT.HanheideM.SagererG. (2009). Mediated attention with multimodal augmented reality [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Cambridge, MA (pp. 245–252). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1647314.1647368
22.
DillenbourgP.BakerM.BlayeA.O’MalleyC. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In SpadaE.ReimanP. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Elsevier.
23.
DillenbourgP.LemaignanS.SanginM.NovaN.MolinariG. (2016). The symmetry of partner modelling. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 227–253.
24.
*FussellS. R.SetlockL. D.KrautR. E. (2003). Effects of head-mounted and scene-oriented video systems on remote collaboration on physical tasks [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL (pp. 513–520). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642701
25.
*GergleD.ClarkA. T. (2011). See what I’m saying? Using dyadic mobile eye tracking to study collaborative reference [Conference session]. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Hangzhou, China (pp. 435–444). Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
GunnK. C.Delafield-ButtJ. T. (2016). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder with restricted interests: A review of evidence for best practice. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 408–430. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315604027
27.
*GuoZ.BarmakiR. (2020). Deep neural networks for collaborative learning analytics: Evaluating team collaborations using student gaze point prediction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6436
28.
*HannaJ. E.BrennanS. E. (2007). Speakers’ eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.008
29.
*HiguchK.YonetaniR.SatoY. (2016). Can eye help you?: Effects of visualizing eye fixations on remote collaboration scenarios for physical tasks [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA (pp. 5180–5190). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858438
30.
*HungH.JayagopiD. B.BaS.OdobezJ.-M.Gatica-PerezD. (2008). Investigating automatic dominance estimation in groups from visual attention and speaking activity [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Chania Crete, Greece (pp. 233–236). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1452392.1452441
31.
*IjsselmuidenJ.StiefelhagenR. (2010). Towards high-level human activity recognition through computer vision and temporal logic [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual German Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, Germany (pp. 426–435). Springer-Verlag.
32.
JarodzkaH.ScheiterK.GerjetsP.van GogT.DorrM. (2010). How to convey perceptual skills by displaying experts’ gaze data [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2920–2925). Cognitive Science Society.
33.
*JarodzkaH.van GogT.DorrM.ScheiterK.GerjetsP. (2013). Learning to see: Guiding students’ attention via a Model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learning and Instruction, 25, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.004
34.
*JayagopiD.Sanchez-CortesD.OtsukaK.YamatoJ.Gatica-PerezD. (2012). Linking speaking and looking behavior patterns with group composition, perception, and performance [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Santa Monica, CA (pp. 433–440). Association for Computing Machinery.
35.
JermannP.MullinsD.NüssliM. A.DillenbourgP. (2011). Collaborative gaze footprints: Correlates of interaction quality. Proceedings of CSCL, I, 184–191. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/170043
36.
KellnhoferP.RecasensA.StentS.MatusikW.TorralbaA. (2019). Gaze360: Physically unconstrained gaze estimation in the wild [Conference session]. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, Seoul, Korea (pp. 6912–6921). IEEE Xplore.
37.
KendonA. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press.
38.
*KüttG. H.TanprasertT.RodolitzJ.MoyzaB.SoS.KenderovaG.PapoutsakiA. (2020). Effects of shared gaze on audio-versus text-based remote collaborations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 136:1–136:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415207
39.
LeavensD. A.RacineT. (2009). Joint attention in apes and humans. Are humans unique?Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(6–7), 240–267.
40.
*LepriB.SubramanianR.KalimeriK.StaianoJ.PianesiF.SebeN. (2010). Employing social gaze and speaking activity for automatic determination of the extraversion trait [Conference session]. International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, Beijing, China (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery.
41.
*LiW.NüssliM.-A.JermannP. (2010). Gaze quality assisted automatic recognition of social contexts in collaborative Tetris [Conference session]. International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, Beijing, China (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery.
42.
*LitchfieldD.BallL. J. (2011). Rapid communication: Using another’s gaze as an explicit aid to insight problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 649–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.558628
43.
*LiuY.HsuehP.-Y.LaiJ.SanginM.NussliM.-A.DillenbourgP. (2009). Who is the expert? Analyzing gaze data to predict expertise level in collaborative applications [Conference session]. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2009. ICME 2009, New York, NY (pp. 898–901). IEEE.
44.
*MasonL.PluchinoP.TornatoraM. C. (2015). Eye-movement modeling of integrative reading of an illustrated text: Effects on processing and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.01.004
45.
MeierA.SpadaH.RummelN. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9005-x
46.
*MolinariG.SanginM.NüssliM.-A.DillenbourgP. (2008, June23–28). Effects of knowledge interdependence with the partner on visual and action transactivity in collaborative concept mapping [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands (Vol. 2, pp. 91–98). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
47.
*MonkA. F.GaleC. (2002). A look is worth a thousand words: Full gaze awareness in video-mediated conversation. Discourse Processes, 33(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3303_4
48.
*MoritaT.MaseK.HiranoY.KajitaS. (2007). Reciprocal attentive communication in remote meeting with a humanoid robot [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Nagoya Aichi, Japan (pp. 228–235). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1322192.1322232
49.
MundyP.SigmanM.KasariC. (1990). A longitudinal study of joint attention and language development in autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02206861
50.
*NakanoY.FukuharaY. (2012). Estimating conversational dominance in multiparty interaction [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Santa Monica, CA (pp. 77–84). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2388676.2388699
51.
*NasirJ.KothiyalA.BrunoB.DillenbourgP. (2021). Many are the ways to learn identifying multi-modal behavioral profiles of collaborative learning in constructivist activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16(4), 485–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09358-2
52.
*NeiderM. B.ChenX.DickinsonC. A.BrennanS. E.ZelinskyG. J. (2010). Coordinating spatial referencing using shared gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 718–724. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.718
53.
NüssliM. A.JermannP.SanginM.DillenbourgP. (2009, June8–13). Collaboration and abstract representations: Towards predictive models based on raw speech and eye-tracking data [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 78–82), Rhodes, Greece. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
54.
*OkadaS.AranO.Gatica-PerezD. (2015). Personality trait classification via co-occurrent multiparty multimodal event discovery [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI ’15, Seattle, WA (pp. 15–22). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818346.2820757
55.
*OlsenJ. K.BelenkyD. M.AlevenV.RummelN. (2014, June5–9). Collaboration on procedural problems may support conceptual knowledge more than you may think [Conference session]. 12th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Honolulu, Hawaii.
56.
*OlsenJ. K.SharmaK.RummelN.AlevenV. (2020). Temporal analysis of multimodal data to predict collaborative learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1527–1547. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12982
57.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, Article 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
58.
*PapavlasopoulouS.SharmaK.GiannakosM.JaccheriL. (2017, June27–30). Using eye-tracking to unveil differences between kids and teens in coding activities [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Stanford, CA (pp. 171–181). ACM.
59.
PapoutsakiA.LaskeyJ.HuangJ. (2017). SearchGazer: webcam eye tracking for remote studies of web search [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, Oslo, Norway (pp. 17–26). ACM.
60.
PashlerH.HarrisC. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401
61.
*ReillyJ. M.SchneiderB. (2019). Predicting the quality of collaborative problem solving through linguistic analysis of discourse [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM) (pp. 149–157), Montreal, Canada. International Educational Data Mining Society.
62.
*RichardsonD. C.DaleR. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_29
63.
*RichardsonD. C.DaleR.KirkhamN. Z. (2007). The art of conversation is coordination: Common ground and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue. Psychological Science, 18(5), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01914.x
64.
RoschelleJ. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.
SalomonG.GlobersonT. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9
67.
*Sanchez-CortesD.AranO.JayagopiD. B.MastM. S.Gatica-PerezD. (2013). Emergent leaders through looking and speaking: From audio-visual data to multimodal recognition. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 7(1–2), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-012-0101-0
68.
SauterM.WagnerT.HuckaufA. (2022, June8–11). Distance between gaze and laser pointer predicts performance in video-based e-learning independent of the presence of an on-screen instructor [Symposium]. 2022 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (pp. 1–10), Seattle, WA. Association for Computing Machinery.
69.
ScaifeM.BrunerJ. S. (1975). The capacity for joint visual attention in the infant. Nature, 253(5489), 265–266. https://doi.org/10.1038/253265a0
70.
SchmittN.StultsD. M. (1986). Methodology review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 1–22.
71.
*SchneiderB. (2019). Unpacking collaborative learning processes during hands-on activities using mobile eye-trackers [Conference session]. International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 41–48), Lyon, France. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
72.
SchneiderB.BryantT. (2022). Using mobile dual eye-tracking to capture cycles of collaboration and cooperation in co-located dyads. Cognition & Instruction, 42(1), 26–55.
73.
SchneiderB. (2020). A methodology for capturing joint visual attention using mobile eye-trackers. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments), 155, Article e60670. https://doi.org/10.3791/60670
74.
SchneiderB.ChngE. (2024). Using pose data to explore changes in students’ self-efficacy and community belonging in makerspaces: An unsupervised approach [Conference session]. The 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 177–180). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
75.
SchneiderB.HassanJ.SungG. (2022). Augmenting social science research with multimodal data collection: The EZ-MMLA Toolkit. Sensors, 22(2), Article 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22020568
76.
*SchneiderB.PeaR. (2013a). Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9181-4
77.
*SchneiderB.PeaR. (2013b). Using eye-tracking technology to support visual coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups [Conference session]. CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 406–413). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
78.
*SchneiderB.PeaR. (2014a). Toward collaboration sensing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative learning, 9(4), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9202-y
79.
*SchneiderB.PeaR. (2014b, July4–7). The effect of mutual gaze perception on students’ verbal coordination [Conference session]. Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining, London, UK (pp. 138–144). International Educational Data Mining Society.
80.
*SchneiderB.PeaR. (2015). Does seeing one another’s gaze affect group dialogue? A computational approach. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.22.9
81.
*SchneiderB.SharmaK.CuendetS.ZuffereyG.DillenbourgP.PeaR. (2015a). Detecting collaborative dynamics using mobile eye-trackers [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden.
82.
*SchneiderB.SharmaK.CuendetS.ZuffereyG.DillenbourgP.PeaR. D. (2015b). 3D tangibles facilitate joint visual attention in dyads. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.[ISLS].
83.
*SchneiderB.SharmaK.CuendetS.ZuffereyG.DillenbourgP.PeaR. (2016). Using mobile eye-trackers to unpack the perceptual benefits of a tangible user interface for collaborative learning. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 23(6), 39:1–39:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012009
84.
*SchneiderB.SharmaK.CuendetS.ZuffereyG.DillenbourgP.PeaR. (2018). Leveraging mobile eye-trackers to capture joint visual attention in co-located collaborative learning groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9281-2
85.
*SchneiderB.SungG.HassanJ.BhinderH. (2022). What matters most for learning from online videos, seeing the instructor’s face or gaze? Their impact on learning and instructor-student behavioral synchrony [Conference session]. The 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 3–10). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
86.
SchwartzD. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0403_3
87.
ShafferD. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Cathcart Press.
88.
*SharmaK.CaballeroD.VermaH.JermannP.DillenbourgP. (2015). Looking AT versus looking THROUGH: A dual eye-tracking study in MOOC context [Conference session]. Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 260–267). ISLS. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2015.250
89.
SharmaK.D’AngeloS.GergleD.DillenbourgP. (2016). Visual augmentation of deictic gestures in MOOC videos. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
90.
*SharmaK.JermannP.NüssliM.-A.DillenbourgP. (2013). Understanding collaborative program comprehension: Interlacing gaze and dialogues. In RummelN.KapurM.PuntambekarS. (Eds.), To see the world and a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time, and scale: CSCL 2013 conference proceedings volume 1—Full Papers & Symposia (pp. 430–437). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
91.
*SharmaK.LeftheriotisI.GiannakosM. (2020). Utilizing interactive surfaces to enhance learning, collaboration and engagement: Insights from learners’ gaze and speech. Sensors, 20(7), 1964. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071964
92.
*SharmaK.LeftheriotisI.NoorJ.GiannakosM. (2017). Dual gaze as a proxy for collaboration in informal learning [Conference session]. In Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL, 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) (Vol. 1). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
93.
*SharmaK.OlsenJ. (2019). An alternate statistical lens to look at collaboration data: Extreme value theory [Conference session]. International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 400–407). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
94.
*SharmaK.OlsenJ. K.VermaH.CaballeroD.JermannP. (2021). Challenging joint visual attention as a proxy for collaborative performance. In Hmelo-SilverC. E.De WeverB.OshimaJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning—CSCL 2021 (pp. 91–98). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/7364
SollerA.MartinezA.JermannP.MuehlenbrockM. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261–290.
98.
ŠpakovO.NiehorsterD.IstanceH.RäihäK. J.SiirtolaH. (2019). Two-way gaze sharing in remote teaching. In Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2019: 17th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Paphos, Cyprus, September 2–6, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 17 (pp. 242-251). Springer International Publishing.
99.
*SpikolD.RuffaldiE.CukurovaM. (2017, June18–20). Using multimodal learning analytics to identify aspects of collaboration in project-based learning [Conference session]. CSCL’17: The 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Philadelphia, PA (Vol. 1, pp. 263–270). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
100.
*SridharanS.BaileyR.McNamaraA.GrimmC. (2012). Subtle gaze manipulation for improved mammography training [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, Santa Barbara, CA (pp. 75–82). Association for Computing Machinery.
101.
StahlG. (2007). Meaning making in CSCL: Conditions and preconditions for cognitive processes by groups. In ChinnC. A.ErkensG.PuntambekarS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 651–660). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
102.
*SteinR.BrennanS. E. (2004). Another person’s eye gaze as a cue in solving programming problems [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, State College, PA (pp. 9–15). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1027933.1027936
103.
*StiefelhagenR.YangJ.WaibelA. (2001). Estimating focus of attention based on gaze and sound [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2001 Workshop on Perceptive User Interfaces, Orlando, FL (pp. 1–9). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/971478.971505
104.
*StiefelhagenR.YangJ.WaibelA. (2002). Modeling focus of attention for meeting indexing based on multiple cues. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 13(4), 928–938. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNN.2002.1021893
105.
*SturmJ.HerwijnenO. H.EyckA.TerkenJ. (2007). Influencing social dynamics in meetings through a peripheral display [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Nagoya Aichi, Japan (pp. 263–270). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1322192.1322238
106.
*SubburajS. K.StewartA. E. B.Ramesh RaoA.D’MelloS. K. (2020, October25–29). Multimodal, multiparty modeling of collaborative problem solving performance [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Virtual Event, Netherlands (pp. 423–432). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3382507.3418877
107.
*SubramanianR.StaianoJ.KalimeriK.SebeN.PianesiF. (2010). Putting the pieces together: Multimodal analysis of social attention in meetings [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Firenze, Italy (pp. 659–662). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1873951.1874045
108.
*SungG.FengT.SchneiderB. (2021). Learners learn more and instructors track better with real-time gaze sharing. PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), Article 134. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449208
109.
SuthersD. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315–337.
110.
TavernaA.PadillaM.WaxmanS. (2024). How pervasive is joint attention? Mother-child dyads from a Wichi community reveal a different form of “togetherness”. Developmental Science, 27, Article e13471. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13471
111.
TomaselloM. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In MooreC.DunhamP. J. (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
112.
*VertegaalR.SlagterR.van der VeerG.NijholtA. (2001). Eye gaze patterns in conversations: There is more to conversational agents than meets the eyes [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA (pp. 301–308). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365119
113.
*VrzakovaH.AmonM. J.StewartA. E.D’MelloS. K. (2019). Dynamics of visual attention in multiparty collaborative problem solving using multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery.
114.
WagnerJ.LingenfelserF.BaurT.DamianI.KistlerF.AndréE. (2013). The social signal interpretation (SSI) framework: Multimodal signal processing and recognition in real-time [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 831–834). Association for Computing Machinery.
115.
WorsleyM.AbrahamsonD.BliksteinP.BumbacherE.GroverS.SchneiderB.TissenbaumM. (2016). Workshop: Situating multimodal learning analytics. In LooiC.-K.PolmanJ. L.CressU.ReimannP. (Eds.), Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners, Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016) (Vol. 2, pp. 1346–1349). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
116.
*YangS.PoonawalaA.JiangA.SchneiderB. (2023). Can synchronous code editing and awareness tools support remote tutoring? Effects on learning and teaching. PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), Article 328. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610177
117.
*YonezawaT.YamazoeH.UtsumiA.AbeS. (2007). Gaze-communicative behavior of stuffed-toy robot with joint attention and eye contact based on ambient gaze-tracking [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Nagoya Aichi, Japan (pp. 140–145). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1322192.1322218
