Abstract
Computer-simulated experiments have been gaining popularity over hands-on experiments in science education, given the availability of technology and the trend of distance learning. Past studies have focused primarily on comparing the learning outcomes and user experiences of the two experiment modes. In this study, we used an eye tracker to investigate the learning processes involved in manipulating hands-on and computer-simulated experiments, and the effect of prior knowledge and experiment mode on eye movements. A total of 105 undergraduates completed either mode of experiment to learn about pulley mechanics. Participants were asked to read relevant concepts before conducting the experiments to ensure they had basic knowledge about the subject matter. Results showed that the learning outcome of experimentation was affected by prior knowledge but not experiment mode. As for eye movements, the two experiment workstations were divided into nine functional regions. The findings revealed that eye movements in most regions were affected by the experiment mode, but not prior knowledge. The simulation group had shorter total fixation durations and smaller pupil sizes than the hands-on group, implying a lower cognitive load in learning in computer-simulated experiments. Lag sequential analysis and entropy analysis were conducted on cross-regional fixation transitions. The results revealed that participants in hands-on experiments tended to make more diversified fixation transitions across regions, whereas those in simulated experiments showed a higher level of concentration in the spatial pattern of fixation transitions. While sequential analysis offers insights into important fixation transitions on a regional level, entropy analysis allows for a more macro perspective on the overall transition distribution and facilitates conventional statistical modeling that takes individual differences into account.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 125, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.023.
Appel, T., Sevcenko, N., Wortha, F., Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., Ninaus, M., & Gerjets, P. (2019). Predicting cognitive load in an emergency simulation based on behavioral and physiological measures. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 154–163).
Baltzis, K., & Koukias, K. D. (2009). Using laboratory experiments and circuit simulation IT tools in an undergraduate course in analog electronics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 546–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10956-009-9169-Z.
Bates, D., Mäechler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00897970138a
Bumbacher, E., Salehi, S., Wieman, C., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Tools for science inquiry learning: Tool affordances, experimentation strategies, and conceptual understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 215–235.
Canty, A., & Ripley, B. (2021). Boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1.3–28.
Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effect of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.01.007.
Chen, S. (2010). The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1123–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.009.
Chien, K. P., Tsai, C. Y., Chen, H. L., Chang, W. H., & Chen, S. (2015). Learning differences and eye fixation patterns in virtual and physical science laboratories. Computers and Education, 82, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.023.
Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8, 010113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010113.
Chiou, G. L., Hsu, C. Y., & Tsai, M. J. (2021). An investigation of visual and manual behaviors involved in interactions between users and physics simulation interfaces. In I. Devetak & S. Glažar (Eds.), Applying bio-measurements methodologies in science education research (pp. 277–294). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71535-9_14
Chiou, G. L., Hsu, C. Y., & Tsai, M. J. (2022). Exploring how students interact with guidance in a physics simulation: Evidence from eye-movement and log data analyses. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(3), 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1664596.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
CoMPASS. (2014). Temporary home for CoMPASS project. Concept Mapped Project-based Activity Scaffolding System. https://github.com/cashaffer/CoMPASS
Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.005.
del Mar Quiroga, M., & Choate, J. K. (2019). A virtual experiment improved students’ understanding of physiological experimental processes ahead of a live inquiry-based practical class. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(4), 195–503. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00050.2019
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.
Gibbons, N. J., Evans, C., Payne, A., Shah, K., & Griffin, D. K. (2004). Computer simulations improve university instructional laboratories. Cell Biology Education, 3(4), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-06-0040.
Han, I. (2013). Embodiment: A new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.b
Hewitt, P. G. (2018). Conceptual Physics: The High School Physics Program (Vol. 1) (Y.-H. Chang, K.-S. Cai, M.-R. Shih, & K.-G. Chen, Trans.). Taipei: Commonwealth Publishing.
Hodgkiss, A., Gilligan, K. A., Tolmie, A. K., Thomas, M. S. C., & Farran, E. K. (2018). Spatial cognition and science achievement: The contribution of intrinsic and extrinsic spatial skills from 7 to 11 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12211.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106.
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425.
Jian, Y. C. (2016). Fourth graders’ cognitive processes and learning strategies for reading illustrated biology texts: Eye movement measurements. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.125.
Jian, Y. C. (2019). Reading instructions facilitate signaling effect on science text for young readers: An eye-movement study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9878-y.
Jian, Y. C. (2021). The immediate and delayed effects of text-diagram reading instruction on reading comprehension and learning processes: Evidence from eye movements. Reading and Writing, 34, 727–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10089-3.
Jian, Y. C. (2022a). Influence of science text reading difficulty and hands-on manipulation on science learning: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59, 358–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21731.
Jian, Y. C. (2022b). Reading in print versus digital media uses different cognitive strategies: Evidence from eye movements during science-text reading. Reading and Writing, 35, 1549–1568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10246-2.
Jian, Y. C. (2022c). Using an eye tracker to examine the effect of prior knowledge on reading processes while reading a printed scientific text with multiple representations. International Journal of Science Education, 44(8), 1209–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2072013.
Jian, Y. C., & Ko, H. W. (2017). Influences of text difficulty and reading ability on learning illustrated science texts for children: An eye movement study. Computers and Education, 113, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.002.
Klahr, D., Triona, L., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20152.
Klein, P., Ivanjek, L., Dahlkemper, M. N., Jeličić, K., & Geyer, M. A. (2021). Studying physics during the COVID-19 pandemic: Student assessments of learning achievement, perceived effectiveness of online recitations, and online laboratories. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17, 1010117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010117.
Kozhevnikov, M., & Thornton, R. (2006). Real-time data display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 15(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0361-0.
Krejtz, K., Szmidt, T., Duchowski, A. T., & Krejtz, I. (2014). Entropy-based statistical analysis of eye movement transitions. ETRA ’14: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. (pp. 159–166). https://doi.org/10.1145/2578153.2578176
Krejtz, K., Duchowski, A., Szmidt, T., Krejtz, I., Perilli, F. G., Pires, A. C., Vilaro, A., & Villalobos, N. (2015). Gaze transition entropy. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 13(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/2834121.
Lai, M. L., Tsai, M. J., Yang, F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W. Y., Lee, M. H., Chiou, G. L., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of using eye‐tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.001.
Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Hagemans, M. G. (2008). The influence of domain knowledge on strategy use during simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 580–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.001.
Lenth, R. V. (2021). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.5.5-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587–625. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15.
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrated text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95–109.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
Mestad, I., & Kolstø, S. D. (2014). Using the concept of zone of proximal development to explore the challenges of and opportunities in designing discourse activities based on practical work. Science Education, 98(6), 1054–1076. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21139.
Miller, B. W. (2015). Using reading times and eye-movements to measure cognitive engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004068
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press.
Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Mnoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phase of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
Peterson, J., Pardos, Z., Rau, M., Swigart, A., Gerber, C., & McKinsey, J. (2015, June). Understanding student success in chemistry using gaze tracking and pupillometry. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 358–366) Springer, Cham.
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744
Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9255-5.
Radhamani, R., Kumar, D., Nizar, N., Achuthan, K., Nair, B., & Diwakar, S. (2021). What virtual laboratories usage tells us about laboratory skill education pre- and post-COVID-19: Focus on usage, behavior, intention and adoption. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7477–7495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10583-3.
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from, http://www.R-project.org/
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.124.3.372
Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003-3.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers and Education, 58, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.
Schieber, F., & Gilland, J. (2008). Visual entropy metric reveals differences in drivers’ eye gaze complexity across variations in age and subsidiary task load. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 52(23), 1883–1887. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805202311
Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cogntion. Routledge.
Song, H. S., Kalet, A., & Plass, J. L. (2016). Interplay of prior knowledge, self-regulation and motivation in complex multimedia learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12117.
Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J. S. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1341668.
Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_02.
Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., Lai, M. L., Liu, W. Y., & Yang, F. Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 58(1), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.012.
Tsai, M. J., Wu, A. H., Bråten, I., & Wang, C. Y. (2022). What do critical reading strategies look like? Eye-tracking and lag sequential analysis reveal attention to data and reasoning when reading conflicting information. Computers & Education, 187, 104544.
van Gog, T., & Jarodzka, H. (2013). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance cognitive and metacognitive processes in computer-based learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 143–156). Springer.
Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021.
van Riesen, S. A. N., Gijlers, H., Anjewierden, A., & de Jong, T. (2018). The influence of prior knowledge on experiment design guidance in a science inquiry context. International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1327–1344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1477263.
Wang, T. N., Jian, Y. C., Wu, C. J., & Li, P. (2022). Science reading and self-regulated learning: Evidence from eye movements of middle-school readers. The Journal of Educational Research, 115(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.2012637.
Weisberg, S. M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Embodied cognition and STEM learning: Overview of a topical collection. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0071-6.
Wen, C. T., Liu, C. C., Chang, H. Y., Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiang, F., Yang, S. H., C.-W., & Hwang, F. K. (2020). Students’ guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education, 149, 103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830.
Winberg, T. M., & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1108–1133. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20217.
Wu, C. J., Liu, C. Y., Yang, C. H., & Jian, Y. C. (2021). Eye movements reveal children’s deliberative thinking and predict their performance in arithmetic word problems. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 91–108.
Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers’ explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1741–1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239664.
Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.887083.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported from the grant MOST 111-2636-H-003-009- under Young Scholar Fellowship Program by Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan, NSTC 111-2410-H-003 -013-MY3 by Naitonal Science and Technology Council, and the “Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences” and “Higher Education Deep Cultivation Project” of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan. We also thank for Pro. Puntambekar agreeing us to use their test items of CoMPASS, and Miss Chan-Mam Yu for collecting the data in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Jian, YC., Cheung, L.Y.T., Wu, YJ. et al. Eye movements in the manipulation of hands-on and computer-simulated scientific experiments: an examination of learning processes using entropy and lag sequential analyses. Instr Sci 52, 109–137 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09634-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09634-8