## 6 Discussion
### Focus Group  
To discuss the potential applications of the visualizations, we conducted a focus group with three teachers from Chile. The main research question was: What visual feedback elements can help you to assess whether a group is well-performing in a collaborative activity or not? The three teachers differ in experience and discipline, but all teach primary and secondary students and have educational backgrounds. Teacher 1 (T1) is a secondary teacher in mathematics with six years of experience. Teacher 2 (T2) is a secondary teacher in history and geography with ten years of experience. Teacher 3 (T3) is a primary teacher in English language (English) with four years of experience. Two researchers conducted a 60-min focus group. The three stages of the activity and its main results are detailed below. Blind Stage: The guiding question of this stage was \"what non-verbal and paraverbal communicative characteristics does a collaborative team have?\". We call this stage \"blind\" because none of the teachers has seen the visualizations. T1 and T2 commented that the members look at each other when talking in a collaborative group: _\"when everyone is looking at what they have to do individually, it is often a non-collaborative group\"_ (T1). T2 and T3 agreed that engaged students have high kinesthetic activity: _\"generally a non-collaborative group is a group that does not express much with its body, because it has no interest, it is more individualistic\"_ (T2). The three participants also agreed that open body postures show that team members are eager to collaborate: _\"when you're standing with your arms crossed, all in a little more rigid or backward position as you mention, it's a posture, shall we say, of little interest in collaborating\"_ (T3). Guessing Stage: In this stage, we presented the visualizations of the collaborative (Figures 4 and 5) and competitive activity (Figures 6 and 7) to the three teachers, without telling them which type of activity it was. The visualizations of the collaborative and competitive activities were tagged as Group A and Group B, respectively. The guiding question was \"which of the two groups is collaborative?\". T1 and T2 agreed that Group A was collaborative because the timeline visualizations showed more structured interactions: _\"Each one had its moment, you could even see that subjects 1 and 2 of Group A as there was an interaction between the two of them in the last part, they interact in an orderly way, and in the other one (Group B) no, you don't see a process\"...\"1 can think that they interrupt each other many times because one speaks, then the other speaks and they are almost speaking at the same time.\"_ (T1), and _\"generally when doing collaborative work, it is important that I give my point of view and that others listen to me\"_ (T2). Also, T1 and T2 agreed that Subject 3 in Group B postures and hand movements were signs of a non-collaborative behavior: _\"He's kind of hedging, probably being a little bit more defensive. In my opinion, in the classroom this has a relationship with being individualistic\"_ (T2). Figure 7: Visualizations for the Competitive Activity. (**A**) Spoken interaction graph. (**B**) Posture Proportion Plot. Teachers T1 and T2 comment on the postures that accompany the interactions, both of those who speak and those who listen: \"_Subject 4 of group B has, as far as I can see, purple circles at the moment of interacting, that is, talking, it is also a characteristic of nonverbal language_\" (T1), and \"_subject 1 did not show a variation because he kept himself in something that we know as active listening. Therefore, as subject 4 in group A was talking, moving, explaining, probably the others were with their hands down listening._\" (T2). T3 indicated agreement with these statements.