Mathematical Creativity: A Systematic Review of Current Research on Eye-Tracking Technology

Farman; Tatag Yuli Eko Siswono; Agung Lukito; Ratna Sari Dewi; Oscar  Ndayizeye; Fitriyani Hali

doi:10.35877/454RI.asci4167

Farman Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Universitas Sembilanbelas November Kolaka (ID)
Tatag Yuli Eko Siswono Universitas Negeri Surabaya (ID)
Agung Lukito Universitas Negeri Surabaya (ID)
Ratna Sari Dewi Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya (ID)
Oscar Ndayizeye Ecole Normale Superieure (ENS) du Burundi (BI)
Fitriyani Hali Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (ID)

https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.asci4167

Keywords: Eye-tracking, mathematical creativity, systematic review

Viewed = 0 time(s)

Abstract

Recent empirical research on mathematical creativity using eye-tracking (ET) technology has faced challenges in developing comprehensive overviews due to the diversity of tools, task types, ET metrics, and identification methods. Thus, this systematic review attempts to examine studies that focus on mathematical creativity and incorporate ET technology. Guided by Newman and Gough’s seven-step approach, a Scopus database search covering publications up to 2024 identified five eligible empirical studies collected for this study. The review reveals that researchers employed two primary types of eye trackers: screen-based trackers, which are affordable and unobtrusive, and eye-tracking glasses, which enable participants to engage in paper-and-pencil tasks while moving naturally. To stimulate creative thinking, the studies utilized open-ended mathematical tasks—particularly geometry-based multiple solution tasks (MST) and visual modeling tasks—that encourage divergent exploration. In analyzing creative processes, researchers combined ET metrics such as fixation duration, fixation count, and scan paths with gaze-overlaid videos, offering complementary insights into visual attention patterns and idea development. Additionally, several studies integrated ET with stimulated recall interviews (SRI), allowing participants to reflect on their strategies and deepening the interpretation of cognitive processes. This methodological combination effectively captures both visual behaviors and participants’ reflections, highlighting the complexity of creative thinking in mathematics and offering guidance for future research and instructional practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bicer, A., & Bicer, A. (2023). Understanding young students’ mathematical creative thinking processes through eye-tracking-stimulated recall interview. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(2), 361–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00429-7

Brand, J., Diamond, S. G., Thomas, N., & Gilbert-Diamond, D. (2021). Evaluating the data quality of the Gazepoint GP3 low-cost eye tracker when used independently by study participants. Behavior Research Methods, 53(4), 1502–1514. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01504-2

Dempsey, N. P. (2010). Stimulated Recall Interviews in Ethnography. Qualitative Sociology, 33(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9157-x

Duchowski, A. T. (2017). Eye Tracking Methodology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57883-5

Farnsworth, B. (2017). Eye Tracking: The Complete Pocket Guide. iMotions. https://imotions.com/blog/learning/10-terms-metrics-eye-tracking/#thank-lp-eye-tracking

Gunawardena, N., Ginige, J. A., & Javadi, B. (2022). Eye-tracking Technologies in Mobile Devices Using Edge Computing: A Systematic Review. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(8), 158:1-158:33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546938

Hu, N. (2020). Depth Estimation Inside 3D Maps based on eye-tracker [Master’s Thesis]. Technische Universität München.

Jang, Y.-M., Mallipeddi, R., & Lee, M. (2014). Identification of human implicit visual search intention based on eye movement and pupillary analysis. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 24(4), 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-013-9142-7

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329

Muldner, K., & Burleson, W. (2015). Utilizing sensor data to model students’ creativity in a digital environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.060

Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic Reviews in Educational Research (pp. 3–22). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1

Persaud, N., & Eliot, M. (2014). The Development and Refinement of Student Self-Regulatory Strategies in Online Learning Environments. In M. Horsley, M. Eliot, B. A. Knight, & R. Reilly (Eds.), Current Trends in Eye Tracking Research (pp. 317–336). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02868-2_25

Poole, A., & Ball, L. (2006). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Current status and future prospects. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction (pp. 211–219). Idea Group, Inc.

Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461

Santhoshikka, R., Laranya, C. R., & Harshavarthini, C. (2021). Eye Tracking and Its Applications. IARJSET, 8(8), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.17148/IARJSET.2021.8824

Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2017). Eye-Tracking as A Tool For Investigating Mathematical Creativity From A Process-View. The 10th International MCG Conference, 45–50.

Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2020). Students’ Creative Process in Mathematics: Insights from Eye-Tracking-Stimulated Recall Interview on Students’ Work on Multiple Solution Tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1565–1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10033-0

Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2022). Students’ collaborative creative process and its phases in mathematics: An explorative study using dual eye tracking and stimulated recall interviews. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 54(1), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01327-9

Schindler, M., Lilienthal, A. J., Chadalavada, R., & Ögren, M. (2016). Creativity in The Eye of The Student. Refining Investigations of Mathematical Creativity Using Eye-Tracking Goggles. In Csíkos, C., Rausch, A., & Szitányi, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4, Pp. 163– 170.

Schoenherr, J., & Schukajlow, S. (2023). Does drawing help or hinder creativity when solving a mathematical modelling problem? Findings from an eye-tracking study. Rivista Di Matematica Della Universita Di Parma, 14(2), 233–248.

Strohmaier, A. R., MacKay, K. J., Obersteiner, A., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). Eye-tracking methodology in mathematics education research: A systematic literature review. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104(2), 147–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09948-1

Wang, H., Chen, Y.-T., & Lin, C.-H. (2014). The learning benefits of using eye trackers to enhance the geospatial abilities of elementary school students: Learning benefits of using eye trackers in geospatial abilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12011