Using Eye-Tracking in Education—A Review Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please find my suggestions enclosed. 

Regards,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Scientific Writing and Academic Style

The writing quality is uneven, with inconsistencies in clarity, cohesion, and phrasing. Several transitions between paragraphs appear abrupt, and the tone is more descriptive than analytical. A stylistic revision for academic fluency is advisable.

Gaps:

• Several language inconsistencies, awkward phrasing, and unclear syntax reduce scientific clarity (e.g., “in the monitored field,” “studies that were carried out over a period of 17 years”).
• Transitions between paragraphs lack academic flow and often feel descriptive rather than analytical.

Recommendation:

• Revise for scientific clarity, conciseness, and coherence.
• Use a structured flow: problem statement → theoretical framework → methodology → results → implications.
• Employ academic connectors (“in contrast,” “notably,” “as demonstrated by”) for smoother transitions and deeper synthesis.

Author Response

Dear editor,

all responses on comments are enclosed

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a timely review of eye-tracking applications in educational contexts. The topic is relevant, and the work has the potential to contribute significantly to the existing literature. However, the following revisions are recommended to enhance the manuscript’s rigor, clarity, and overall impact:

Justification of Database Selection: The exclusive use of the Web of Science database requires more substantial justification. It is recommended that the authors explain why other relevant databases (e.g., Scopus, ERIC) were not included.

Keyword Search Strategy: The current search strategy, limited to the title field, considerably narrows the scope of the review. To ensure broader coverage of the literature, it is suggested that the search be expanded to include titles, abstracts, and keywords.

Details of the Coding Process and Software Used: The manuscript would benefit from more detailed reporting on the coding process.

Figures and Tables: Figures and tables should be revised to improve visual quality and caption clarity. Moreover, the main text should directly engage with these elements to support interpretation and discussion.

Depth of Thematic and Conceptual Analysis: The thematic analysis could be deepened. The authors are encouraged to engage more critically with the literature, discussing contradictions, methodological caveats, and limitations observed across the reviewed studies.

Limited Practical Implications: The findings' practical relevance should be elaborated further. In particular, the manuscript could offer more insight into the reviewed research's pedagogical implications and real-world applications.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of the language should be improved. A linguistic revision is recommended to enhance the text's clarity, grammar, and fluency.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

all cresonses on comments are enclosed

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The updated version shows notable enhancements over the initial submission. The addition of established cognitive theories, including Cognitive Load Theory, Dual Coding Theory, and the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, provides essential theoretical depth. The paper offers a timely and pertinent synthesis, especially considering the increasing use of eye-tracking technologies in educational research. Nevertheless, while the manuscript has made progress, several areas remain underdeveloped.

1. The methodology still lacks complete transparency, the statistical analyses are somewhat limited, and the proposed classification framework, though conceptually promising, is not fully elaborated.
2. Additionally, the practical implications are too generalized and would benefit from more specific, application-focused recommendations. To raise the manuscript to the standards expected in a high-impact journal like Education Sciences, I respectfully provide the following detailed feedback: 1a. Theoretical Integration: The introduction of theoretical frameworks is commendable. However, they are mostly disconnected from the analytical interpretation. I encourage the authors to actively apply these theories throughout the results and discussion sections, for example, by linking observed patterns in attention or cognitive load to theoretical constructs. 2a. Methodology: The coding procedure and use of PRISMA are now better described, yet the manuscript would benefit from: A supplementary codebook or expanded description of the categorization logic; Clear reporting of inter-rater reliability; Greater detail on the inclusion/exclusion process for non-English articles; Additional inferential statistical procedures (e.g., ANOVA, Spearman correlations) to deepen the analysis beyond chi-square comparisons.
3. Statistical and Visual Analysis:

While the application of chi-square tests is commendable, the study lacks reporting on effect sizes, p-values, and assumptions. Enhancements could include:

Visualizing interactions between variables (e.g., nationality × cognitive focus);

Utilizing correlation matrices or heatmaps to investigate temporal or geographical patterns;

Incorporating AOI or simulated gaze diagrams if possible, or at least referencing existing studies for illustrative purposes.

4. Conceptual Framework Contribution:

The dual-axis classification proposed (education level × cognitive function) offers a significant conceptual advancement. I recommend that the authors visualize this framework (e.g., matrix or heatmap) and discuss its potential to uncover underexplored areas (e.g., early childhood metacognition or adult attention processing).

5. Scientific Writing:

Some expressions are informal or unclear, and transitions could be improved for better analytical clarity. Consider refining sentence structures and enhancing the academic flow with clearer synthesis markers (e.g., “This finding reinforces…”, “In contrast…”).

6. Practical Implications:

The section on pedagogical application shows promise but is somewhat superficial. I suggest adding 2–3 specific educational scenarios (e.g., instructional design recommendations, teacher training interventions, platform development).

7. Ethical Considerations:

Please clarify how multilingual data was handled, the use of any translation tools, and how potential cultural biases in coding were addressed.

Conclusion and Recommendation:

The revised manuscript represents a positive advancement and demonstrates the authors’ commitment to enhancing both theoretical framing and structural clarity. However, it still requires significant revision to meet the standards of this reputable journal. With further methodological precision, stronger visual and statistical synthesis, and more actionable implications, this work can make a valuable contribution to the field. I would be pleased to review a revised version of this manuscript.

Regards,

reviewer

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. The methodology still lacks complete transparency, the statistical analyses are somewhat limited, and the proposed classification framework, though conceptually promising, is not fully elaborated.

It was revised

 

2. Additionally, the practical implications are too generalized and would benefit from more specific, application-focused recommendations. To raise the manuscript to the standards expected in a high-impact journal like Education Sciences, I respectfully provide the following detailed feedback: 1a. Theoretical Integration: The introduction of theoretical frameworks is commendable. However, they are mostly disconnected from the analytical interpretation. I encourage the authors to actively apply these theories throughout the results and discussion sections, for example, by linking observed patterns in attention or cognitive load to theoretical constructs. 2a. Methodology: The coding procedure and use of PRISMA are now better described, yet the manuscript would benefit from: A supplementary codebook or expanded description of the categorization logic; Clear reporting of inter-rater reliability; Greater detail on the inclusion/exclusion process for non-English articles; Additional inferential statistical procedures (e.g., ANOVA, Spearman correlations) to deepen the analysis beyond chi-square comparisons.

The requested kinds of information was changed respectively added.

 

3. Statistical and Visual Analysis:

While the application of chi-square tests is commendable, the study lacks reporting on effect sizes, p-values, and assumptions. Enhancements could include:

Visualizing interactions between variables (e.g., nationality × cognitive focus);

Utilizing correlation matrices or heatmaps to investigate temporal or geographical patterns;

Incorporating AOI or simulated gaze diagrams if possible, or at least referencing existing studies for illustrative purposes.

Some kinds of information were added in the limitation of study. Also required diagram(s) were added with explanation in the discussion chapter.

 

4. Conceptual Framework Contribution:

The dual-axis classification proposed (education level × cognitive function) offers a significant conceptual advancement. I recommend that the authors visualize this framework (e.g., matrix or heatmap) and discuss its potential to uncover underexplored areas (e.g., early childhood metacognition or adult attention processing).

The discussion chapter was enriched by the required kinds of information.

 

 

5. Scientific Writing:

Some expressions are informal or unclear, and transitions could be improved for better analytical clarity. Consider refining sentence structures and enhancing the academic flow with clearer synthesis markers (e.g., “This finding reinforces…”, “In contrast…”).

The text was completely revised

 

6. Practical Implications:

The section on pedagogical application shows promise but is somewhat superficial. I suggest adding 2–3 specific educational scenarios (e.g., instructional design recommendations, teacher training interventions, platform development).

Practical implications were added.

 

7. Ethical Considerations:

Please clarify how multilingual data was handled, the use of any translation tools, and how potential cultural biases in coding were addressed.

It was changed.

 

Conclusion and Recommendation:

The revised manuscript represents a positive advancement and demonstrates the authors’ commitment to enhancing both theoretical framing and structural clarity. However, it still requires significant revision to meet the standards of this reputable journal. With further methodological precision, stronger visual and statistical synthesis, and more actionable implications, this work can make a valuable contribution to the field. I would be pleased to review a revised version of this manuscript.

It was revised.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a valuable and timely systematic review of the application of eye-tracking in educational contexts. Its theoretical foundation—drawing on Cognitive Load Theory, Dual Coding Theory, and the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning—is well chosen and contributes meaningfully to the depth and relevance of the review.

However, several key aspects require attention:

Language and Style: The manuscript contains multiple grammatical inaccuracies and stylistic inconsistencies. Many sentences are awkwardly phrased, which detracts from the clarity of the arguments. A comprehensive language revision is strongly recommended, with an emphasis on formal academic tone and the consistent use of impersonal constructions.

Methodological Transparency: Further detail is needed regarding the selection criteria, coding procedures, and language inclusion strategy. In particular, it is important to clarify how non-English studies were analyzed and how inter-coder reliability was ensured.

Figures and Tables: The quality and clarity of the figures and tables should be improved. Consider refining visual formatting and ensuring all elements are legible, well-labelled, and relevant to the main arguments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the manuscript requires substantial editing to meet academic standards. There are frequent grammar issues, improper verb forms (e.g., "the using of eye-tracking"), and inconsistencies in tone and formality. A native English-speaking academic editor is recommended to improve flow, clarity, and consistency.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Language and Style: The manuscript contains multiple grammatical inaccuracies and stylistic inconsistencies. Many sentences are awkwardly phrased, which detracts from the clarity of the arguments. A comprehensive language revision is strongly recommended, with an emphasis on formal academic tone and the consistent use of impersonal constructions.

English native speaker revised the text of the manuscript.

 

Methodological Transparency: Further detail is needed regarding the selection criteria, coding procedures, and language inclusion strategy. In particular, it is important to clarify how non-English studies were analyzed and how inter-coder reliability was ensured.

The revised kinds of information were changed respectively added.

 

Figures and Tables: The quality and clarity of the figures and tables should be improved. Consider refining visual formatting and ensuring all elements are legible, well-labelled, and relevant to the main arguments.

It was revised.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revised submission and the thoughtful responses to the reviewers' comments. I appreciate the substantial improvements you have made, particularly in strengthening the theoretical background, expanding the practical implications, and clarifying the methodological procedures. Your responsiveness and academic rigour are evident throughout the revised version.

That said, I believe that several minor issues still require final alignment before the manuscript can be considered for publication:

1. Link between statistical results and the conceptual heatmap: While the visualization is well-designed, it remains somewhat disconnected from the statistical section. I recommend that you integrate a short interpretive comment in the Results or Discussion section to connect your chi-square findings with the patterns presented in the heatmap (Figure 6).

2. Statistical reporting: Please ensure that key p-values and effect sizes (e.g., Cramer's V) are not only reported in tables but briefly contextualised in the narrative. This would enhance the clarity and interpretive depth of your findings.

3. Language and transitions: Although the manuscript has undergone stylistic revision, some passages, particularly in the Discussion and Practical Implications sections, would benefit from further refinement. Clearer transitions and more concise formulations will improve the overall readability and scholarly tone.

Once these final adjustments are made, I believe the manuscript will offer a valuable contribution to the field and will be suitable for publication.

Kind regards,
Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English has improved in the revised version, and it is now generally clear and suitable for academic publication. However, some sections, particularly in the Discussion and Practical Implications, would benefit from additional refinement to enhance clarity, coherence, and stylistic consistency. A final professional language edit is recommended to ensure the tone remains consistently formal and scientifically precise throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment: Link between statistical results and the conceptual heatmap: While the visualization is well-designed, it remains somewhat disconnected from the statistical section. I recommend that you integrate a short interpretive comment in the Results or Discussion section to connect your chi-square findings with the patterns presented in the heatmap (Figure 6).

Response: Thank you for your observation, the following text has been added:

These visual patterns resonate strongly with the statistical results obtained from the chi-square analyses presented earlier (Tables 1–2; Figure 5). For instance, the heatmap’s emphasis on the intersection between university-level education and reading comprehension is mirrored in the statistically significant overrepresentation of this pairing in the chi-square analysis (p < 0.05). Likewise, Asian-authored studies showed a disproportionate focus on reading comprehension (p < 0.05), a pattern that is also visible in the heatmap via the high intensity in the university–READ cluster. Conversely, the sparsely populated zones in the heatmap—such as metacognition at the kindergarten level or decision-making in secondary education—align with statistically negligible frequencies (Cramer’s V < 0.12), reinforcing the notion that these topic-population intersections remain severely underexplored. By synthesizing inferential statistics with visual pattern recognition, the heatmap effectively validates the statistical conclusions and highlights systemic gaps in current research emphases. This integrative approach underscores not only the reliability of the statistical models used but also the diagnostic utility of the heatmap as a strategic tool for future research planning.

Comment: Statistical reporting: Please ensure that key p-values and effect sizes (e.g., Cramer's V) are not only reported in tables but briefly contextualised in the narrative. This would enhance the clarity and interpretive depth of your findings

Response: Thank you for your observation, the following text has been added:

While the p-values presented in Tables 1 and 2 do not indicate statistically significant relationships (all p > 0.05), it is still informative to consider the effect sizes as indicated by Cramer's V. In the context of social science research, a Cramer’s V of approximately 0.10 is typically interpreted as a small effect, around 0.30 as medium, and 0.50 or higher as a large effect (Cohen, 1988). In our data, the strongest observed association was between the nationality of authors and psychological phenomena studied (Cramer’s V = 0.149, p = 0.07), which suggests a small but potentially meaningful trend. This is reinforced by the finding in Figure 5, where U.S.-based studies more often focused on evaluation-related processes, and Asian studies prioritized reading comprehension—patterns that may reflect underlying cultural or academic emphases. Another noteworthy relationship appears between the year of publication and educational level (Cramer’s V = 0.196, p = 0.08). Although not statistically significant, this small-to-moderate effect may imply a gradual diversification in study populations over time, with growing interest beyond university student samples. These observations suggest that even in the absence of statistically significant chi-square values, certain categorical associations in the dataset may carry interpretative relevance. Therefore, effect sizes like Cramer’s V provide essential additional insight into the structure of the data, complementing p-values by indicating the strength of association between variables.

Comment: Language and transitions: Although the manuscript has undergone stylistic revision, some passages, particularly in the Discussion and Practical Implications sections, would benefit from further refinement. Clearer transitions and more concise formulations will improve the overall readability and scholarly tone.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding language and transitions in the Discussion and Practical Implications sections. In response, we conducted a focused stylistic revision of both sections. Specifically, we improved textual cohesion by adding clearer transitional phrases between paragraphs and shortened or rephrased several lengthy or redundant sentences to enhance readability and academic tone. We believe these refinements have substantially improved the clarity and flow of the manuscript.