Using Eye Tracking as a Peer Review Tool for Visual and Digital Compositions

References

1. Anson Chris M., and Schwegler Robert A.. “Tracking the Mind’s Eye: A New Technology for Researching Twenty-First-Century Writing and Reading Processes.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 1 2012, pp 151–71.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ballenger Bruce, and Myers Kelly. “The Emotional Work of Revision.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 70, no. 4 2019, pp 590–614.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Baron Dennis. “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies.” Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies edited by Hawisher Gail and Selfe Cynthia L., Utah State UP / National Council of Teachers of English 1999, pp 15–33.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Brumberger Eva. “The Potential of Eye Tracking for Visual Literacy Research.” Journal of Visual Literacy, vol. 40, no. 1 2021, pp 34–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2021.1902040.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Conjin Rianne, et al. “A Product- and Process-Oriented Tagset for Revisions in Writing.” Written Communication, vol. 39, no. 1 2022, pp 97–128, https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211052104.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cooke Lynne. “Eye Tracking: How It Works and How It Relates to Usability.” Technical Communication, vol. 52, no. 4 2005, pp 456–63.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Corbett Steven J., et al. Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review and Response for the Writing Classroom. Fountain Head P 2014.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Crook Stephanie. “A Social-Constructionist Review of Feedback and Revision Research: How Perceptions of Written Feedback Might Influence Understandings of Revision Processes.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 73, no. 3 2022, pp 593–614.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Dolmage Jay. Disability Rhetoric. Syracuse UP 2014.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Edwards Jessica. “Race and the Workplace: Toward a Critically Conscious Pedagogy.” Key Theoretical Frameworks: Teaching Technical Communication in the Twenty-First Century edited by Hass Angela M. and Eble Michelle F., Utah State UP 2018, pp 268–86.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Farnsworth Bryn. “Eye Tracker Prices— An Overview of 15+ products.” iMotions 2023 https://imotions.com/blog/learning/product-news/eyetracker-prices/
    [Google Scholar]
12. Gere Anne Ruggles. Writing Groups History, Theory, and Implications. Southern Illinois UP 1987.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Hubrig Adam, and Osorio Ruth editors “Enacting a Culture of Access in Our Conference Spaces.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 72, no. 1 2020, pp 87–117.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Jackson Phoebe, and Weaver Christopher. Rethinking Peer Review: Critical Reflections on a Pedagogical Practice. WAC Clearinghouse 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
15. King Andy J., et al. “Improving Visual Behavior Research in Communication Science: An Overview, Review, and Reporting Recommendations for Using Eye-Tracking Methods.” Communication Methods and Measures, vol. 13, no. 3 2019, pp 149–77, https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1558194.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Menges Raphael, et al. “Improving User Experience of Eye Tracking-Based Interaction: Introspecting and Adapting Interfaces.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 26, no. 6 2019, pp 1–46, https://doi.org/10.1145/3338844.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Moore Kristen R. “Black Feminist Epistemology as a Framework for Community-Based Teaching.” Key Theoretical Frameworks: Teaching Technical Communication in the Twenty-First Century edited by Haas Angela M. and Eble Michelle F., Utah State UP 2018, pp 185–211.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Oleksiak Timothy. “A Queer Praxis for Peer Review.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 72, no. 2 2020, pp 306–32.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Paulson Eric J., et al. “Peer Review Reviewed: Investigating the Juxtaposition of Composition Students’ Eye Movements and Peer-Review Processes.” Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 41, no. 3 2007, pp 304–35.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Selznick Hilary. “Performing a Metis Pedagogy in the Rhetoric and Writing Studies Classroom.” Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 1 2020, https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v40i1.7225.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Shah Rachael W. “The Courage of Community Members: Community Perspectives of Engaged Pedagogies.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 70, no. 1 2018, pp 82–110.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Slavina Anna, et al. “Student Use of Scaffolding Resources in a Hybrid Course: Evidence from Eye-Tracking.” International Journal of Innovations in Education, vol. 4, no. 1 2020, doi:10.1615/IntJInnovOnlineEdu.2020032355.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Stofer Kathryn, and Che Xuan. “Comparing Experts and Novices on Scaffolded Data Visualizations Using Eye-Tracking.” Journal of Eye Movement Research, vol. 7, no. 5 2014, https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.7.5.2.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Tham Jason Chew Kit. “Wearable Writing: Enriching Student Peer Review with Point-of-View Video Feedback Using Google Glass.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 47, no. 1 2017, pp 22–55, https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616641923.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Tobii. “The Eye Tracking Research Starter Kit.” Tobii 2023 https://www.tobii.com/lp/hardware-and-software-bundle
    [Google Scholar]
26. Werner Courtney L. “How Rhetoric and Composition Described and Defined New Media at the Start of the Twenty-First Century.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 68, no. 4 2017, pp 713–41.
    [Google Scholar]