More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

Inferring mindful cognitive-processing of peer-feedback via eye-tracking: role of feedback-characteristics, fixation-durations and transitions

Authors:

F. FischerAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume 31, Issue 5

Pages 422 - 434

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12091

Published: 01 October 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Feedback literature identifies mindful cognitive processing of peer feedback and peer feedback characteristics - as well as the presence of justifications for feedback - as important for its efficiency. However, mindful cognitive processing has yet to be operationalized and investigated. In this study, an operationalization of mindful cognitive processing is introduced, alongside an investigation to identify valid measures for it. In a between-subjects design, peer feedback PF content [elaborated specific feedback with justifications ESF+J vs. elaborated specific feedback without justifications ESF] was varied. Students received a scenario containing an essay by a fictional student and fictional PF, followed by a text revision, distraction and PF recall task. Eye tracking was applied to measure a how written PF was re- read fixation durations and b the number of transitions occurring between PF and essay text. Mindful cognitive processing was inferred from the relation between fixation durations on PF and number of transitions between essay text and PF with a text revision performance and b PF recall performance. When no justifications were provided, recipients invested more time in reading the PF and essay and increased the effort to relate the PF to essay text. Fixation durations and number of transitions proved to be valid measures to infer mindful cognitive processing.

References

[1]

Assessment Reform Group. 1999. Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, School of Education.

[2]

Baer, R. A. 2003. Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, Volume 10, pp.125-142.

[3]

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., &Allen, K. B. 2004. Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, Volume 11, pp.191-206.

[4]

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., &Morgan, M. T. 1991. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, Volume 61 Issue 2, pp.213-238.

[5]

Bednarik, R., &Tukiainen, M. 2008. Temporal eye-tracking data: evolution of debugging strategies with multiple representations. Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications pp. 99-102. New York, NY: ACM.

[6]

Brown, K. W., &Ryan, R. M. 2003. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 84, pp.822-848.

[7]

Butler, D. L., &Winne, P. H. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, Volume 65 Issue 3, pp.245-281.

[8]

Chiu, M. M. 2008. Flowing toward correct contributions during groups' mathematics problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Volume 17, pp.415-463.

[9]

Feldman, G. C., Hayes, A. M., Kumar, S. M., Greeson, J. M., &Laurenceau, J. P. 2007. Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised CAMS-R. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 29, pp.177-190.

[10]

Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., &Struyven, K. 2010. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, Volume 20 Issue 4, pp.304-315.

[11]

Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., &Smeets, S. 2010. A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, Volume 36, pp.143-162.

[12]

Hattie, J., &Timperley, H. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, Volume 77 Issue 1, pp.81-112.

[13]

Hayes, R. P. 2003. Classical Buddhist model of a healthy mind. In K. H.Docket, G. R.Dudley-Grant, &C. P.Bankart Eds., Psychology in Buddhism: From individual to global community pp. pp.161-170. New York, NY, Boston, MA, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

[14]

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., &Wilson, K. G. 1999. Acceptance and commitment therapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

[15]

Hounsell, D. 2007. Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In D.Boud &N.Falchikov Eds., Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term 1st ed., pp. pp.101-113. New York, NY: Routledge.

[16]

Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F.Jr., &Kaakinen, J. K. 2002. Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 94 Issue 1, pp.44-55.

[17]

Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, Volume 87, pp.329-355.

[18]

Kabat-Zinn, J. 1990. Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York, NY: Delacorte.

[19]

Kluger, A. N., &DeNisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, Volume 119 Issue 2, pp.254-284.

[20]

Knight, B. A., Horsley, M., &Eliot, M. 2014. Eye tracking and the learning system: An overview. In M.Horsley, M.Eliot, B. A.Knight, &R.Reilly Eds., Current trends in eye tracking research pp. pp.281-285. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

[21]

Langer, E. J. 1989. Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

[22]

Langer, E. J., &Moldoveanu, M. 2000. The construct of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, Volume 56, pp.1-9.

[23]

Langer, L., Schulz von Thun, F., &Tausch, R. 1999. Sich verständlich ausdrücken {Expressing oneself comprehensively}. München, Germany: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.

[24]

Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., ' Carmody, J. 2006. The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, Volume 62, pp.1445-1467.

[25]

Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., &Ariasi, N. 2013. An Eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, Volume 81 Issue 3, pp.356-384.

[26]

Mayer, R. 2010. Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, Volume 20 Issue 2, pp.167-171.

[27]

Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Penttinen, M., Anto, E., &Olkinuora, E. 2008. Constructing mental models during learning from science text. Eye tracking methodology meets conceptual change. In D.Ifenthaler, P.Pirnay-Dummer, &J. M.Spector Eds., Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel pp. pp.63-79. New York, NY: Springer.

[28]

Muldner, K., Christopherson, R., Atkinson, R., &Burleson, W. 2009. Investigating the utility of eye-tracking information on affect and reasoning for user modeling. In G.-J.Houben, G.McCalla, F.Pianesi, &M.Zancanaro Eds., User modeling, adaptation, and personalization pp. pp.138-149. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

[29]

Narciss, S. 2008. Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M.Spector, M. D.Merrill, J. J. G.Van Merriënboer, &M. P.Driscoll Eds., Handbook of research on educational communications and technology 3rd ed., pp. pp.125-143. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[30]

Narciss, S., &Huth, K. 2004. How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi-media learning. In H. M.Niegemann, D.Leutner, &R.Brünken Eds., Instructional design for multimedia learning pp. pp.181-195. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

[31]

Nelson, M. M., &Schunn, C. D. 2009. The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, Volume 37 Issue 4, pp.375-401.

[32]

Pat-El, R. J., Tillema, H., Segers, M., &Vedder, P. 2013. Validation of assessment for learning questionnaires for teachers and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 83, pp.98-113.

[33]

Poulos, A., &Mahony, M. J. 2008. Effectiveness of feedback: The students' perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Volume 33, pp.143-154.

[34]

Rayner, K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, Volume 124 Issue 3, pp.372-422.

[35]

Rayner, K. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Volume 62 Issue 8, pp.1457-1506.

[36]

Robinson, M. D., &Clore, G. L. 2001. Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Volume 27 Issue 11, pp.1520-1532.

[37]

Salomon, G., &Globerson, T. 1987. Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, Volume 11, pp.623-637.

[38]

Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., &Renkl, A. 2009. How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Volume 23, pp.1227-1243.

[39]

Shute, V. J. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, Volume 78 Issue 1, pp.153-189.

[40]

Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., &Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. 2002. Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Volume 27, pp.443-454.

[41]

Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., &Dünnebier, K. 2010. Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, Volume 20 Issue 4, pp.291-303.

[42]

Strijbos, J. W., &Sluijsmans, D. M. A. 2010. Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, Volume 20 Issue 4, pp.265-269.

[43]

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., &Paas, F. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, Volume 10 Issue 3, pp.251-296.

[44]

Tabachnick, B. G., &Fidell, L. S. 2013. Using multivariate statistics 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[45]

Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., &Williams, M. G. 1995. How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control mindfulness training help? Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume 33, pp.25-39.

[46]

Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., &Tillema, H. H. 2009. Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, Volume 4 Issue 1, pp.41-54.

[47]

Van Gog, T., &Scheiter, K. 2010. Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, Volume 20 Issue 2, pp.95-99.

[48]

Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., &Schmidt, S. 2006. Measuring mindfulness-the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory FMI. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 40 Issue 8, pp.1543-1555.

[49]

Walker, M. 2014. The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates' draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Advance online publication. Retrieved from "http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.898737".

[50]

Webb, N. M. 1991. Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Volume 22, pp.366-389.

[51]

Webb, N. M., &Mastergeorge, A. 2003. Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, Volume 39, pp.73-97.

[52]

Wiliam, D. 2011. What is assessment for learning? Studies for Educational Evaluation, Volume 37, pp.3-14.

Cited By

Türkoğlu HYalçınalp S(2024)Investigating problem-solving behaviours of university students through an eye-tracking system using GeoGebra in geometry: A case studyEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-12452-129:12(15761-15791)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-024-12452-1
Cutumisu MSchwartz D(2018)The impact of critical feedback choice on students' revision, performance, learning, and memoryComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.02978:C(351-367)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.029
Lachner ABurkhart CNckles M(2017)Formative computer-based feedback in the university classroomComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.00872:C(459-469)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.008

Recommendations

A Comparison of Two Cognitive Pretesting Techniques Supported by Eye Tracking

In questionnaire pretesting, supplementing cognitive interviewing with eye tracking is a promising new method that provides additional insights into respondents' cognitive processes while answering survey questions. When incorporating eye tracking into ...
Does Web Design Matter? Examining Older Adults' Attention to Cognitive and Affective Illustrations on Cancer-Related Websites through Eye Tracking
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Aging and Assistive Environments - Volume 8515

This study examines how adults pay attention to cognitive and affective illustrations on a cancer-related webpage and explores age-related differences in the attention to these cognitive and affective webpages. Results of an eye-tracking experiment n = ...
Eye tracking in retrospective think-aloud usability testing: is there added value?

Eye tracking is the process of recording users' eye movements while they are looking at the location of an object. In usability testing, this technique is commonly used in combination with think-aloud protocols. This paper presents an experimental study ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Volume 31, Issue 5

October 2015

100 pages

ISSN:0266-4909

EISSN:1365-2729

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2015

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Türkoğlu HYalçınalp S(2024)Investigating problem-solving behaviours of university students through an eye-tracking system using GeoGebra in geometry: A case studyEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-12452-129:12(15761-15791)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-024-12452-1
Cutumisu MSchwartz D(2018)The impact of critical feedback choice on students' revision, performance, learning, and memoryComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.02978:C(351-367)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.029
Lachner ABurkhart CNckles M(2017)Formative computer-based feedback in the university classroomComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.00872:C(459-469)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.008
Wang JChen SChang BChan T(2016)From integrative to game-based integrative peer responseJournal of Computer Assisted Learning10.1111/jcal.1212532:2(170-185)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1111/jcal.12125

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents