## 6 Discussion
### Discussion on Feedback Usefulness  
The results from the case study consist of a starting point to provide feedback for the behavioral indicators and traces proposed in Table 2. In the following paragraph, we detail our insights about each of the collaboration constructs.  
Regarding cognitive contribution, as the two activities were mainly spoken, we believe it was possible to trace the contribution of each member by the number and duration of the spoken interactions, as presented in Figures 5A and 7A. Furthermore, the activity's short duration helped the subjects to focus on contributing. Under this context, we think that the provided visualizations could be helpful for teachers to observe and understand the cognitive contribution of the subjects. More complex activities requiring more coordination, or longer activities where subjects could speak about other subjects than the required task, would need to identify each spoken interaction's matter to consider it a cognitive contribution. Moreover, complementary measures would be needed for activities with other types of cognitive contribution (e.g., collaborative writing or modeling).  
Concerning the assimilation construct, we believe that the results for the competitive activity successfully show the criticality behavior indicator in the overlapped, short-timed spoken interactions depicted in Figure 6, which are characteristic of a non-collaborative behavior. We think this result could allow teachers to identify whether a team needs their intervention to avoid excessive criticality between the subjects.  
Regarding the team coordination construct, the graphs in Figures 5 and 7 depict that team members communicated with each other. We expected that in the visualization for the competitive activity, it would be apparent how a subject was less involved in the debate. However, the graphs do not seem to show any insights into this fact. It seems the proposed analytic and visualization do not provide enough insight into team coordination. An improvement could be measuring the spoken interventions of the subjects aimed to achieve team coordination.  
For the self-regulation coordination, the timeline visualizations allow to clearly observe differences in how the subjects adapt their behavior to achieve a collaborative goal: while in the collaborative activity, each team member takes a turn to contribute, in the competitive activity, the chaotic interaction shows no adaptations to collaborate. We think that this visualization might be helpful for teachers to distinguish teams that are capable of self regulating from groups that would need their help to get coordinated, such as presented in [48].  
For the cultivation of the environment, the differences in body postures presented in Figure 5B,D clearly show that subjects kept an open posture in the collaborative activity in contrast with more varied postures in the competitive activity. The emergence of expansive postures (e.g., hands to the head shown by Subject 4, in the competitive activity) and defensive ones (e.g., hugging the opposite arm by Subject 3, in the same activity) seems to provide insights about a change of attitudes that could affect the collaborative environment. However, this is valid for observing the same subjects in different situations. Besides the visualization, it would be helpful to notify the teacher when there is a change in the typical collaborative postures of the team's subjects.  
Finally, concerning integration, we think that spoken contribution visualization in Figures 5A and 7A is helpful given the specific characteristics of the activity, as subjects can participate in any other way than speaking. In this context, the visualization is valuable in identifying subjects with less spoken interaction, allowing teachers to intervene to foster the integration of those subjects.