Cited by 59Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyOnline Learning and Analytics

Eye tracking technology for examining cognitive processes in education: a systematic review

Open access
Liu, Xiaoxiao, Cui, Ying·2025·Computers & Education

Abstract

Eye-tracking studies have been increasingly used to investigate student cognitive processes. While some existing literature has reviewed commonly used eye-tracking measures and analytical methods across different contexts, there remains a gap in clarifying the educational themes, cognitive theories, and specific cognitive processes most frequently examined in recent eye-tracking studies. To address this, this review synthesizes recent educational eye-tracking research analyzing student cognitive processes from January 2012 to November 2024. In total, 313 articles were reviewed, and several main findings emerged: (1) The majority of eye-tracking studies examined the themes of multimedia learning, reading performance, and problem-solving, while fewer focused on second language learning, computer-based tests, and individual differences. (2) About half of the studies were conducted under one or more theories, with Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), and Dual-coding Theory (DCT) being the most frequently applied. (3) Eye-tracking data were primarily collected from college students, and temporal and count measures were typically used to investigate the cognitive process of information organization rather than those of information selection and integration. (4) Basic statistical methods and linear mixed models were widely used to analyze student attention differences. The results of this review provide theoretical and practical insights into the strengths and challenges of using eye-tracking technology to assess the impact of pedagogical interventions in computer-based learning environments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105263

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Eye-tracking indices such as fixation duration, fixation count, AOI dwell proportion, revisit count, and transitions across regions can reveal how attention is distributed during information search, evidential judgment, and answer construction and thereby provide process-level evidence relevant to source verification.

    “These indices can reveal how attention is distributed during information search, evidential judgment, and answer construction and thereby provide process-level evidence relevant to source verification. These affordances have made eye tracking particularly useful for studying source evaluation in digital environments (Gottschling et al., 2019; Liu and Cui, 2025; Hessels et al., 2025).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Liu, X., & Cui, Y.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Liu, Xiaoxiao
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-05
Volume
229
Pages
105263
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407319906
Cited by
59
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 25
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Computers & Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2019-0159)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
eye tracking, cognitive processes, educational technology, reading comprehension, attention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review