Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Designing Gaze Analytics for ELA Instruction: A User-Centered Dashboard with Conversational AI Support

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A user-centered dashboard with a conversational AI agent can make webcam gaze data interpretable and actionable for teachers and students.

desk verdict Solid design-based research on a gaze-LLM dashboard for ELA, but the abstract's 'pedagogically valuable' claim outstrips the evidence; the paper itself concedes in Sec. 5.4 that only perceived usability was measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03741 v1 pith:A6DOY4Y6 submitted 2025-09-03 cs.HC cs.AI

Eduardo Davalos , Yike Zhang , Shruti Jain , Namrata Srivastava , Trieu Truong , Nafees-ul Haque , Tristan Van , Jorge Salas
show 4 more authors
Sara McFadden Sun-Joo Cho Gautam Biswas Amanda Goodwin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords gazeanalyticslearningdashboardEnglishLanguageArtseyetrackingconversationalagentlargemodeldatastorytellinguser-centereddesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that eye-tracking data, though unfamiliar and technical, can be made interpretable and pedagogically useful in real classrooms if the dashboard leads with familiar visuals, layers explanations, and includes an LLM-powered chatbot that answers natural-language questions. Through five iterative studies with teachers and students, it shows that such a dashboard supports reflection, formative assessment, and instructional decisions in English Language Arts. The claim matters because reading comprehension is largely invisible to teachers during silent reading; gaze analytics could reveal attention, strategies, and confusion, but only if non-experts can read the data. The paper's findings suggest that user-centered design and AI scaffolding can meet that condition.

What carries the argument

The dashboard itself, iterated through four prototype stages: a post-assessment dashboard with heatmaps and performance tables, a Figma-based interactive version with PDF-overlaid gaze visualizations and teacher-defined student grouping, a final dashboard with classroom-wide and individual reports, and an LLM-generated report pipeline with an embedded conversational agent. The load-bearing mechanism is layered data storytelling: familiar visualizations as the entry point, progressive disclosure from summary to detail, and narrative scaffolds such as legends, tooltips, and AI summaries. The conversational agent aggregates gaze data, student performance, assignment content, and ELA standards i

What would settle it

Run the same 500-word reading comprehension task with simultaneous webcam and laboratory-grade eye tracking; if fixation locations and scanpath order differ enough to change the behavior clusters or heatmap summaries the dashboard displays, then the dashboard's reading-behavior narrative is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a design solution rather than a new sensor: gaze-based learning analytics become approachable and pedagogically valuable when wrapped in data storytelling scaffolds and a conversational agent. Heatmaps overlaid on the reading passage are intuitive, while scanpaths and behavior-segmented plots are not; progressive disclosure from classroom-level summaries to question-level detail, simplified legends, tooltips, and AI-generated narrative reports help teachers and students interpret unfamiliar gaze data. A large language model can further lower the cognitive barrier by letting users ask questions about plots, clusters, and student trends, but the authors find that trust

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on webcam-captured gaze features—fixations, heatmaps, scanpaths—actually reflecting the reading processes they claim to show; the paper notes webcam tracking is less precise than laboratory equipment, so if that signal is unreliable, the whole value proposition collapses regardless of interface quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Teachers and students can interpret gaze analytics without eye-tracking expertise if dashboards start with heatmaps and provide layered explanations.
  • An LLM-powered conversational agent can reduce the cognitive load of exploring gaze data and support on-demand, natural-language inquiry.
  • Gaze data can move from research analysis into classroom-facing formative assessment and instructional decision-making.
  • Design principles such as progressive disclosure, self-narration, and explainable AI can guide future EdTech systems that integrate novel data modalities.
  • Webcam-based eye tracking, despite lower precision, can support real-time classroom gaze analytics when paired with interpretable visual design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If webcam gaze accuracy improves, the same layered-dashboard design could transfer beyond ELA to other subjects where attention and strategy are invisible, such as math problem solving or science reading.
  • The students' preference for tracking their own progress over peer comparison suggests gaze dashboards may work better as reflection and self-regulation tools than as accountability or grading instruments.
  • The authors' emphasis on traceability implies that classroom adoption of such conversational agents depends on grounding every AI claim in inspectable data; without that, teacher trust is the binding constraint.
  • A natural extension, only sketched in the paper, is an agent that not only explains visualizations but also performs custom analyses on request, such as comparing dynamically defined student groups and generating new visualizations from those comparisons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports an iterative, design-based research effort to build a gaze-based learning analytics dashboard for English Language Arts instruction, augmented by an LLM-powered conversational agent. The authors describe five studies: an initial classroom deployment with 38 students and 1 teacher; in-depth interviews with 14 students and 4 teachers; an interactive design workshop with 20 students and 4 teachers; a Likert-based evaluation of LLM-generated reports by 5 teachers; and a follow-up conversational-agent test with 2 teachers. The abstract and RQ conclusions claim that gaze analytics can be approachable and pedagogically valuable and that the conversational agent lowers cognitive barriers to interpreting gaze data. The limitations section (Sec. 5.4) explicitly acknowledges that the evaluations focused on perceived usability and interpretability rather than direct learning outcomes or long-term behavior change.

Significance. The paper's main strength is its well-documented, multi-phase user-centered design process for a novel multimodal learning analytics interface. It provides detailed protocols, clear figures, and a public link to interview materials, which aids reproducibility and makes the design implications (familiar visualizations, progressive disclosure, explainable AI, on-demand inquiry) useful to the learning-analytics and HCI communities. If the central claim is read narrowly as 'users find the dashboard approachable and interpretable,' the qualitative and small-sample evidence supports it. The stronger claim of 'pedagogically valuable' is not supported by the measured outcomes, which are exclusively self-report perceptions rather than changes in teaching, learning, or gaze-signal validity. The contribution is therefore more about design process and perceived usability than demonstrated pedagogical impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §5.1; §5.4] The abstract's claim that 'gaze analytics can be approachable and pedagogically valuable' and the RQ1 answer in §5.1 ('capable of offering actionable insights') go beyond what was measured. All outcome data are self-reported: student questionnaires (62% no challenges, 90% positive comments), interviews, workshop observations, and Likert ratings of LLM report sections. There is no measure of whether teachers made different instructional decisions or whether students learned more. §5.4 concedes that 'our evaluations primarily focused on perceived usability and interpretability, rather than direct learning outcomes.' Please revise the central claims to perceived approachability/interpretability and potential pedagogical value, or add outcome-based evidence.
  2. [§4.4; §5.1 (RQ3)] The conversational-agent claim is based on a single study with two teachers (T=2), no baseline, no structured task-success measure, and no analysis of interaction logs or inter-rater reliability. The statements that the agent 'enabled users to engage with the data more fluidly' and 'can reduce interpretive burden' exceed the evidence. Either present this as an exploratory usability probe or provide more evidence, including what questions were asked, how responses were verified, and what qualitative analysis supports the 'lower cognitive barriers' conclusion.
  3. [§5.4; §4.1] The dashboard's value proposition depends on webcam-based gaze features (fixations, heatmaps, scanpaths) meaningfully reflecting reading processes, but the paper reports no validation of feature accuracy or relation to comprehension. §5.4 acknowledges webcam tracking 'remains less precise than laboratory-grade equipment.' If the gaze signal is noisy or invalid, even a well-received interface cannot support the claimed actionability. Please include data-quality checks, accuracy metrics, or explicit scoping of the claims to assumed-valid gaze features.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.4; Fig. 7] Fig. 7 is reproduced from companion paper [10], but the surrounding text says 'We developed an LLM-driven assignment report system.' Clarify which components are new to this paper and which are repurposed from prior work to calibrate the contribution.
  2. [§1; §4.1] The 'RedForest' system is mentioned before being introduced. Add a brief description and citation at first use so readers unfamiliar with prior work can follow the classroom deployment.
  3. [§4.1; Fig. 4] The text reports 62% of students having no challenges, while Fig. 4 shows 29.7% reporting some challenge; these numbers do not reconcile (100% - 29.7% = 70.3%). Also, the text says 90% positive comments while Fig. 4 says 89.2%. Reconcile the percentages and clarify whether they refer to different questions.
  4. [§5.4] The limitation about LLM outputs being 'inconsistent and opaque' is not connected to any concrete mitigation or evaluation evidence. Consider citing specific instances from the teacher sessions or describing planned verification mechanisms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the five user studies, not the cited prior work, carry the empirical conclusions; the abstract's pedagogical-value claim is an overreach that the authors themselves limit in Sec. 5.4.

full rationale

This design-based research paper has no derivation chain of equations or fitted constants; its conclusions are empirical. The claim that gaze analytics can be approachable and pedagogically valuable is supported by questionnaires, interviews, workshops, and small agent evaluations reported in this paper. Section 5.4 explicitly concedes that 'our evaluations primarily focused on perceived usability and interpretability, rather than direct learning outcomes or long-term behavior change,' so the abstract's 'pedagogically valuable' is broader than the measured outcomes; that is an evidence/validity gap, not a definitional reduction. The authors' prior GazeViz [9] and LLM-report [10] work is cited and Figure 7 is 'Reproduced from [10] with permission,' but these citations supply provenance and background, not the empirical findings; the findings are generated by the studies in this manuscript. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is identifiable; the appropriate finding is no circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on design choices (which visualizations, groupings, and AI report structure to use) and on three domain assumptions: that gaze reflects comprehension, that webcam tracking is accurate enough, and that perceived usefulness approximates pedagogical value. The paper explicitly acknowledges the latter two as limitations.

free parameters (3)
  • Primary gaze visualization type = heatmap
    Workshop participants preferred heatmaps as the most intuitive visualization; this design choice directly supports the claim that gaze analytics are approachable.
  • Student grouping categories = Below, At, Above Mastery; ESL; teacher-defined
    Teachers requested flexible grouping during interviews; the dashboard implements these categories, and the LLM report clusters students accordingly.
  • LLM report structure = Status, Summary, Content & Skills, Clusters, Outliers, Recommendations
    The six-section report format was defined by the authors and inherited from companion paper [10]; teacher evaluation of the AI report is based on these sections.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Eye gaze is a valid indicator of reading comprehension and engagement.
    Invoked throughout Section 2.2 and foundational to the dashboard's purpose; the dashboard assumes gaze patterns reveal cognitive processes.
  • domain assumption Webcam-based eye tracking is sufficiently accurate for classroom analytics.
    Assumed in the initial classroom study (Section 4.1) and acknowledged as a limitation in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption User self-reports of usefulness and engagement are adequate evidence of pedagogical value.
    The findings synthesize Likert ratings and interview quotes; the paper states in Section 5.4 that direct learning outcomes were not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Gaze Analytics for ELA Instruction: A User-Centered Dashboard with Conversational AI Support." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6DOY4Y6

@misc{pith2026250903741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Gaze Analytics for ELA Instruction: A User-Centered Dashboard with Conversational AI Support},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6DOY4Y6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03741}
}
read the original abstract

Eye-tracking offers rich insights into student cognition and engagement, but remains underutilized in classroom-facing educational technology due to challenges in data interpretation and accessibility. In this paper, we present the iterative design and evaluation of a gaze-based learning analytics dashboard for English Language Arts (ELA), developed through five studies involving teachers and students. Guided by user-centered design and data storytelling principles, we explored how gaze data can support reflection, formative assessment, and instructional decision-making. Our findings demonstrate that gaze analytics can be approachable and pedagogically valuable when supported by familiar visualizations, layered explanations, and narrative scaffolds. We further show how a conversational agent, powered by a large language model (LLM), can lower cognitive barriers to interpreting gaze data by enabling natural language interactions with multimodal learning analytics. We conclude with design implications for future EdTech systems that aim to integrate novel data modalities in classroom contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. User-Centered Design Timeline: Key phases of our iterative design process, including teacher and student involvement and major takeaways that shaped each prototype revision. and student engagement [23]. By involving stakeholders at multiple stages, through classroom deployments, in-depth interviews, design workshops, and evaluations, we ensured that the dashboard evolved in response to real-world feedback rather tha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figma-Guided Design Evolution: Figma served as a central collaborative artifact throughout the project, supporting cross-team discussions, rapid prototyping, and stakeholder engagement. Each iteration of the dashboard incorporated user feedback, evolving from static wireframes to interactive prototypes informed by real classroom needs. A central component of our iterative design methodology was the use of Figma as a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Post-Assessment High-Fidelity Prototype v1: The initial dashboard design used during the first classroom study. The interface presents three key components: a gaze heatmap overlaid on a reading passage (left), a performance table showing student answers per question (top right), and a score trajectory graph visualizing cumulative student scores over time (bottom right). This version was used to assess student engage… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Student Questionnaire Responses: Pie charts summarizing student feedback from the initial classroom study. The left chart shows that 89.2% of students gave positive comments about the system, while the right chart indicates that 29.7% of students reported experiencing …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Post-Assessment Figma Design v2: Revised dashboard prototype shown during the interactive design workshop. This version includes an accordion-based question layout, class performance summaries, and PDF-embedded heatmaps. Participants could toggle between viewing data b…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PDF Overlay Visualization Types: Comparison of four gaze-based visualization styles explored during design iterations. From left to right: (1) gaze heatmap shows intensity of attention, (2) raw scanpath visualizes fixation order, (3) behavior-segmented scanpath uses co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: LLM-Augmented Report Generation Pipeline: Gaze data, student performance, assignment content, and learner attributes are aggregated and structured into a prompt format used by a large language model (LLM) to generate classroom-level summaries. These human-readable repo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Teacher Ratings of AI-Generated Report Sections: Boxplot showing Likert scale ratings (1–5) provided by teachers for six different sections of the AI-generated reading assessment reports: Status, Summary, Content & Skills, Clusters, Outliers, and Recommendations. While…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Post-Assessment Analytics Dashboard Design v3: The new version of the analytics dashboard includes both a classroom￾wide (left) and an individual student (right) report. Each report has multimodal learning analytics and an AI-based report and conversational agent to su…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dana AlZoubi, Evrim Baran, Aliye Karabulut-Ilgu, Anasilvia Salazar Morales, and Stephen B. Gilbert. 2024. From concept to classroom: Developing instructor dashboards through human centered design. Computers and Education Open 7 (Dec. 2024), 100234. doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100234

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Terry Anderson and Julie Shattuck. 2012. Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher 41, 1 (Jan. 2012), 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189x11428813 Publisher: American Educational Research Association (AERA)

    doi:10.3102/0013189x11428813 2012

  3. [3]

    Roger Azevedo, François Bouchet, Melissa Duffy, Jason Harley, Michelle Taub, Gregory Trevors, Elizabeth Cloude, Daryn Dever, Megan Wiedbusch, Franz Wortha, and Rebeca Cerezo. 2022. Lessons Learned and Future Directions of MetaTutor: Leveraging Multichannel Data to Scaffold Self- Regulated Learning With an Intelligent Tutoring System. Frontiers in Psycholo...

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Paulo Blikstein and Marcelo Worsley. [n. d.]. MULTIMODAL LEARNING ANALYTICS AND ASSESSMENT OF OPEN- ENDED ARTIFACTS. ([n. d.])

    work page

  5. [5]

    Paterson, Carsten Schulte, Bonita Sharif, and Sascha Tamm

    Teresa Busjahn, Roman Bednarik, Andrew Begel, Martha Crosby, James H. Paterson, Carsten Schulte, Bonita Sharif, and Sascha Tamm. 2015. Eye Movements in Code Reading: Relaxing the Linear Order. IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension 2015-Augus (2015), 255–265. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2015.36

    doi:10.1109/icpc.2015.36 2015

  6. [6]

    Xiuge Chen, Namrata Srivastava, Rajiv Jain, Jennifer Healey, and Tilman Dingler. 2023. Characteristics of Deep and Skim Reading on Smartphones vs. Desktop: A Comparative Study. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings . Association for Computing Machinery, Hamburg,Germany. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581174

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Clayton Cohn, Nicole Hutchins, Tuan Le, and Gautam Biswas. 2024. A Chain-of-Thought Prompting Approach with LLMs for Evaluating Students’ Formative Assessment Responses in Science. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 38, 21 (Mar. 2024), 23182–23190. doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30364

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30364 2024

  8. [8]

    font-variant:small-caps

    Clayton Cohn, Caitlin Snyder, Joyce Horn Fonteles, Ashwin T. S., Justin Montenegro, and Gautam Biswas. 2025. A multimodal approach to support teacher, researcher and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AI</span> collaboration in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">STEM</span>+C learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology 56, 2 (...

    work page doi:10.1111/bjet.13518 2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Eduardo Davalos, Namrata Srivastava, Yike Zhang, Amanda Goodwin, and Gautam Biswas. 2024. GazeViz: A Web-Based Approach for Visualizing Learner Gaze Patterns in Online Educational Environment. (2024). doi:10.58459/icce.2024.4974

    2024

  2. [10]

    Eduardo Davalos, Yike Zhang, Namrata Srivastava, Jorge Alberto Salas, Sara McFadden, Sun-Joo Cho, Gautam Biswas, and Amanda Goodwin. 2025. LLMs as Educational Analysts: Transforming Multimodal Data Traces into Actionable Reading Assessment Reports. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.0209...

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ali Akber Dewan, and Xiaokun Zhang

    Narius Farhad Davar, M. Ali Akber Dewan, and Xiaokun Zhang. 2025. AI Chatbots in Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Information 16, 3 (March 2025), 235. doi:10.3390/info16030235

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Cristina de-la Peña. 2024. Eye-tracking contribution on processing of (implicit) reading comprehension. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 13, 1 (12 2024), 0–17. doi:10.1007/s44322-024-00013-w

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Vanessa Echeverria, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2017. Towards data storytelling to support teaching and learning. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction . ACM, Brisbane Queensland Australia, 347–351. doi:10.114...

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Vanessa Echeverria, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Simon Buckingham Shum, Katherine Chiluiza, Roger Granda, and Cristina Conati. 2018. Exploratory versus Explanatory Visual Learning Analytics: Driving Teachers’ Attention through Educational Data Storytelling. Journal of Learning ...

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Vanessa Echeverria, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Roger Granda, Katherine Chiluiza, Cristina Conati, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2018. Driving data storytelling from learning design. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge . ACM, Syd...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Andrew Emerson, Nathan Henderson, Jonathan Rowe, Wookhee Min, Seung Lee, James Minogue, and James Lester. 2020. Early Prediction of Visitor Engagement in Science Museums with Multimodal Learning Analytics. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Inter...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Gloria Milena Fernandez-Nieto, Vanessa Echeverria, Simon Buckingham Shum, Katerina Mangaroska, Kirsty Kitto, Evelyn Palominos, Carmen Axisa, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2021. Storytelling With Learner Data: Guiding Student Reflection on Multimodal Team Data. IEEE Transacti...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Melanie Heck, Christian Becker, and Viola Deutscher. 2023. Webcam Eye Tracking for Desktop and Mobile Devices: A Systematic Review. Hawaii, USA. https://userweb.cs.txstate.edu/~ok11/index.html

    2023

  11. [19]

    John Wesley Hostetter, Cristina Conati, Xi Yang, Mark Abdelshiheed, Tiffany Barnes, and Min Chi. 2023. XAI to Increase the Effectiveness of an Intelligent Pedagogical Agent. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents . ACM, Würzburg G...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Brockmole, and Sidney K

    Stephen Hutt, Kristina Krasich, Caitlin Mills, Nigel Bosch, Shelby White, James R. Brockmole, and Sidney K. D’Mello. 2019. Automated gaze-based mind wandering detection during computerized learning in classrooms. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 29, 4 (Sept. 2019), 8...

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Wah, and Dragan Gašević

    Gwo-Jen Hwang, Haoran Xie, Benjamin W. Wah, and Dragan Gašević. 2020. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020), 100001. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001

    2020

  14. [22]

    Gavindya Jayawardena, Vikas Ashok, and Sampath Jayarathna. 2024. Advanced Gaze Analytics Dashboard. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration for Data Science (IRI) . IEEE, San Jose, CA, USA, 114–119. doi:10.1109/iri62200.2024.00034

    2024

  15. [23]

    Diana Joseph. 2004. The Practice of Design-Based Research: Uncovering the Interplay Between Design, Research, and the Real-World Context. Educational Psychologist 39, 4 (Sept. 2004), 235–242. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3904_5 Publisher: Informa UK Limited

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A Carpenter. 1980. A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension . Technical Report

    1980

  17. [25]

    Carolien A. N. Knoop-van Campen, Ellen Kok, Roos Van Doornik, Pam De Vries, Marleen Immink, Halszka Jarodzka, and Tamara Van Gog. 2021. How teachers interpret displays of students’ gaze in reading comprehension assignments. Frontline Learning Research 9, 4 (Dec. 2021), 116–140...

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Sha Liu and Guoxing Yu. [n. d.]. L2 learners’ engagement with automated feedback: An eye-tracking study. ([n. d.])

  19. [27]

    Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Vanessa Echeverria, Gloria Fernandez Nieto, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2020. From Data to Insights: A Layered Storytelling Approach for Multimodal Learning Analytics. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ...

    2020

  20. [29]

    Mézière, Lili Yu, Erik D

    Diane C. Mézière, Lili Yu, Erik D. Reichle, Titus von der Malsburg, and Genevieve McArthur. 2023. Using Eye-Tracking Measures to Predict Reading Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 58, 3 (7 2023), 425–449. doi:10.1002/rrq.498

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    Ismael Villegas Molina, Audria Montalvo, Benjamin Ochoa, Paul Denny, and Leo Porter. 2024. Leveraging LLM Tutoring Systems for Non-Native English Speakers in Introductory CS Courses. arXiv:2411.02725 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02725

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Mézière, Lili Yu, Genevieve McArthur, Erik D

    Diane C. Mézière, Lili Yu, Genevieve McArthur, Erik D. Reichle, and Titus Von Der Malsburg. 2024. Scanpath Regularity as an Index of Reading Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading 28, 1 (Jan. 2024), 79–100. doi:10.1080/10888438.2023.2232063

    2024

  23. [32]

    Van Bach Nguyen, Jörg Schlötterer, and Christin Seifert. 2023. From Black Boxes to Conversations: Incorporating XAI in a Conversational Agent. 71–96. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44070-0_4 ISSN: 1865-0929, 1865-0937 arXiv:2209.02552 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Xavier Ochoa. [n. d.]. Chapter 6: Multimodal Learning Analytics - Rationale, Process, Examples, and Direction. ([n. d.])

  25. [34]

    Alexandra Papoutsaki, Nediyana Daskalova, Patsorn Sangkloy, Jeff Huang, James Laskey, and James Hays. 2016. WebGazer: Scalable Webcam Eye Tracking Using User Interactions. New York City, USA. https://webgazer.cs.brown.edu

    2016

  26. [35]

    Stanislav Pozdniakov, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Yi-Shan Tsai, Vanessa Echeverria, Namrata Srivastava, and Dragan Gasevic. 2023. How Do Teachers Use Dashboards Enhanced with Data Storytelling Elements According to their Data Visualisation Literacy Skills?. In LAK23: 13th Inte...

    2023

  27. [36]

    Apostolakis, Kosmas Dimitropoulos, and Petros Daras

    Athanasios Psaltis, Konstantinos C. Apostolakis, Kosmas Dimitropoulos, and Petros Daras. 2018. Multimodal Student Engagement Recognition in Prosocial Games. IEEE Transactions on Games 10, 3 (Sept. 2018), 292–303. doi:10.1109/TCIAIG.2017.2743341

    2018

  28. [37]

    Ramkumar Rajendran, Daniel T Levin, Anurag Kumar, Gautam Biswas, and Kelly E Carter. [n. d.]. Predicting Learning by Analyzing Eye-Gaze Data of Read-ing Behavior. Technical Report

  29. [38]

    Juan Pablo Sarmiento and Alyssa Friend Wise. 2022. Participatory and Co-Design of Learning Analytics: An Initial Review of the Literature. In LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference . ACM, Online USA, 535–541. doi:10.1145/3506860.3506910

    2022

  30. [39]

    Bertrand Schneider, Richard Davis, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Gautam Biswas, Marcelo Worsley, and Nikol Rummel. [n. d.]. Stepping Outside the Ivory Tower: How Can We Implement Multimodal Learning Analytics in Ecological Settings, and Turn Complex Temporal Data Sources into Ac...

  31. [40]

    Erfani, Dragan Gasevic, and James Bailey

    Namrata Srivastava, Sadia Nawaz, Joshua Newn, Jason Lodge, Eduardo Velloso, Sarah M. Erfani, Dragan Gasevic, and James Bailey. 2021. Are you with me? Measurement of learners’ video-watching attention with eye tracking. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series . Associ...

    2021

  32. [41]

    Perfetti

    Jessica Nelson Taylor and Charles A. Perfetti. 2016. Eye movements reveal readers’ lexical quality and reading experience. Reading and Writing 29, 6 (June 2016), 1069–1103. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9616-6

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    The Design-Based Research Collective. 2003. Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher 32, 1 (Jan. 2003), 5–8. doi:10.3102/0013189x032001005 Publisher: American Educational Research Association (AERA)

    2003 doi

  34. [43]

    Yuehua Wang, Shulan Lu, and Derek Harter. 2021. Towards Collaborative and Intelligent Learning Environments Based on Eye Tracking Data and Learning Analytics: A Survey. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 137991–138002. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3117780 Manuscript submitted to ACM 22 Davalos et al

    2021

  35. [44]

    Let me explain!

    Katharina Weitz, Dominik Schiller, Ruben Schlagowski, Tobias Huber, and Elisabeth André. 2021. “Let me explain!”: exploring the potential of virtual agents in explainable AI interaction design. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 15, 2 (June 2021), 87–98. doi:10.1007/s12193-...

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    Marcelo Worsley and Paulo Blikstein. 2018. A Multimodal Analysis of Making. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 28, 3 (Sept. 2018), 385–419. doi:10.1007/s40593-017-0160-1

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    Lixiang Yan, Linxuan Zhao, Vanessa Echeverria, Yueqiao Jin, Riordan Alfredo, Xinyu Li, Dragan Gaševi’c, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2024. VizChat: Enhancing Learning Analytics Dashboards with Contextualised Explanations Using Multimodal Generative AI Chatbots. In Artificia...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.