Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual Change, Text Comprehension and Eye Movements During Reading

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the two studies presented in this article, we examine the interplay of conceptual change, text comprehension, and eye-movements during reading and develop and test methods suitable for such explorations. In studies 1 and 2, university students (N = 15 and 23) read a text on photosynthesis, explained their reading processes retrospectively cued with their own gaze videos, and answered written pre- and posttests. In Study 1, a case study demonstrated connections between re-readings and high-level cognitive processing. Out of all of the participants' retrospective reports, categories were formed based on the expressions referring to either situation model or textbase construction during reading. In Study 2, conceptual change learners differed from other learner groups in terms of prolonged overall reading time and a relatively high amount of expressing textbase construction at the beginning of the retrospective reporting. The results emphasise the importance of careful construction of the textbase in conceptual change and point to the benefits of complementing the eye tracking with cued retrospective reporting when examining high-level cognitive processes during reading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Finnish universities, the qualification for the elementary school teacher profession necessitates both Bachelor of Arts (3 years) and Master of Arts (2 years) degrees.

  2. In Finnish, two terms are used for photosynthesis: yhteyttäminen and fotosynteesi. The first term is now occasionally used as a superior term, covering photo- and chemosynthesis, while the latter refers only to the process where solar energy is utilized. In the treatment text, the first term was used in the main title and in the subtitle on page 4, while the latter was used in the second subtitle.

  3. According to Lisa’s own description, the second reading focused on the three pages merely because she was at that point uncertain of the number of the page she was reading; therefore, she returned to the beginning from page 3.

  4. One CC group member and two experts with scientific-like prior conceptions responded to all incidents being questioned, leaving the ‘no explanation’ category with a zero frequency. One no-CC group member expressed no situation model construction in her descriptions.

References

  • Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2010). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9142-5.

  • Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts. The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65–83. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00020-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49. doi:10.3102/00346543063001001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C., Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. Van Gompel, M. Fisher, W. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movement research: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–372). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research. Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A. (2000). Readers, texts and conceptual change learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 99–118. doi:10.1080/105735600277980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revth ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. P. (1991). The use of eye mark recordings to support verbal retrospection in software testing. Acta Psychologica, 76, 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J. (2010). Commentary. The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172–176. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J., & Nurminen, A.-M. (2006). Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 31–50. doi:10.1348/000712605X53678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44–55. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyrskykari, A., Ovaska, S., Majaranta, P., Räihä, K.-J., & Lehtinen, M. (2008). Gaze path stimulation in retrospective think-aloud. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarozka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository texts on text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eye tracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239–257. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4003_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 161–195. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.4.294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199–226. doi:10.1023/A:1003854216687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165–196). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 291–309. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: Towards a systemic model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14, 519–534. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00041-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2002). Science learning through text: The effect of text design and text comprehension skills on conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 337–356). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Penttinen, M., Anto, E., & Olkinuora, E. (2008). Problems of constructing mental models during learning from science text. Eye tracking methodology meets conceptual change. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 63–79). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76898-4_4.

  • Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 67, 489–508. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. doi:10.1080/17470210902816461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slatter, T., & Ashby, J. (2002). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 241–255. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 139–175). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., & Mason, L. (2008). Beyond knowledge: Learner characteristics influencing conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 560–582). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351. doi:10.1002/acp.1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 237–244. doi::10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2008). Conceptual change research: An introduction. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. xiii–xxviii). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Finnish Doctoral Programme in Education and Learning and by the Academy of Finland [project number 128892]. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the participants of the two studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education and Centre for Learning Research, University of Turku, Assistentinkatu 5, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Marjaana Penttinen, Erkki Anto & Mirjamaija Mikkilä-Erdmann

Authors
  1. Marjaana Penttinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erkki Anto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirjamaija Mikkilä-Erdmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marjaana Penttinen.

Appendices

Appendix 1

The Treatment Text (English Translation)

Photosynthesis

The Nourishment Supply of Organisms

All organisms need energy in order to live. Energy is received through nourishment. Plants and some other organisms differ from animals in that they prepare their own nourishment. That process is called photosynthesis.

Plants, algae and some bacteria prepare their own nourishment through photosynthesis. Animals, on the other hand, eat the nourishment prepared by plants. Photosynthesising organisms are autotrophic, because they do not need any other organisms in order to stay alive. Animals, on the other hand, are heterotrophic, because they are either directly or indirectly dependent on the nourishment prepared by, for example, plants.

Photosynthesis can happen in two ways. Most of it happens with the help of solar energy. This is called photosynthesis, as ‘photo’ stands for light. All plants and for example algae prepare their nourishment through photosynthesis. The other way is to take the necessary energy from certain inorganic substances instead of the Sun. Then we speak of chemosynthesis. It is used by, among others, some bacteria living in dark, deep-sea conditions.

Photosynthesis

Plants photosynthesise with photosynthesis. Photosynthesis occurs in chloroplasts, most of which are located in the leaves of the plant. A plant needs carbon dioxide and water as the raw materials for photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide gets inside of the leaves of the plant through small holes called stomata. Water, for one, moves inside of the plant within small tubes, or vascular bundles, and in leaf veins within the leaves. The driving power in photosynthesis is sunlight. In addition to the raw materials, a plant also needs a favourable temperature and enough nutrients.

The end products of photosynthesis are sugar and oxygen. Oxygen is released into the air through the stomata. Sugar, on the other hand, is the actual nourishment of the plant. Solar energy is bound to it. Photosynthesis lasts about 1 to 3 s.

There is more sugar being prepared than what a plant would need right away. Thereby a plant does not use all of the sugar immediately but stores the sugar it prepared, depending on the plant, in different parts of itself. For example, a potato stores sugar in its tubers, a pea in its seeds, a swede in its roots, a cabbage in its leaves and a plum in its fruit.

Photosynthesis Supports Life

Organisms get energy from nourishment. Food chains represent the way energy flows in nature. A carrot binds solar energy in photosynthesis, a rabbit gets energy by eating the carrot and a fox gets energy by eating the rabbit. In each step, energy is exiting the food chain. The amount of energy the fox gets is only a small part of the energy the carrot originally made use of. Energy does not circle around in food chains eternally, but it is transferred to food chains only through photosynthesis. Substances, on the other hand, circle around and come back from the top of the food chain to the use of photosynthesising organisms.

Photosynthesis has not yet been executed in laboratories. Only organisms that photosynthesise can prepare their own nourishment. At the same time, they produce oxygen and in this way maintain the right consistency of the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is the most important supporter of life on Earth since without it there would be neither nourishment nor oxygen on Earth. That is why all organisms depend on photosynthesis.

Appendix 2

The Final Interview Protocol (English Translation)

  • You have read a text concerning photosynthesis and answered questions about the topic. I will still ask a couple of questions about this topic and the whole experiment.

Item 1: Question—the nourishment supply of a plant

  • How does a plant get nourishment?

  • Before this experiment, how did you think that a plant gets nourishment?

  • Has something [in your conceptions] changed during the experiment?

  • Did you learn something new?

If necessary, the interview is continued so that answering cannot be avoided.

  • Do you have any thoughts about how it could be even though you are not sure?

Item 2: Question—energy flow

  • When you eat meat, you get energy. Where has the energy come from to the meat?

  • Where has the energy come from to the salad you eat?

  • Where has the energy come from to a potato?

  • How do potato and salad differ in this case?

If necessary, the interview is continued so that answering cannot be avoided.

  • Do you have any thoughts about how it could be even though you are not sure?

Item 3: Questions about the concepts

  • On top of that, some short questions about the concepts.

  • Is there energy in nourishment?

  • Is there energy in nutrients?

  • Are nutrients nourishment?

Item 4: Questions about unclear points/clarifying points, if necessary

  • On the pre-test, you wrote that you want to clarify/you are interested in…

  • Did you get answers to your questions?

  • Do you still have anything in your mind which is unclear or you are interested in?

Item 4 (if necessary): Clarifying the phenomenon

  • Finally, just in case, a short repetition. It is the most central thing to understand that when photosynthesising, a plant makes its own nourishment and does not take it ready-made. When a plant first photosynthesises and then stores the nourishment the plant prepared, the animals then gets nourishment by eating plants. Energy flow and the circulation of matter will easily get mixed up. The energy comes from the Sun, and the plant uses it in photosynthesis. Animals get energy by eating plants. The energy flowing in the food chain gradually exits the food chain and does not return to the plants’ use. Matter, on the other hand, is a different story; when a carnivore moulders, matter will return to the soil and into the use of plants. So matter does circulate, but energy does not.

Item 5: Evaluating the experiment

  • Now the whole thing is nearly over.

  • What do you think about this experiment?

  • What do you think about the text? What do you think about the questions?

  • In which mood did you come in here?

  • Did you know something beforehand [about the experiment]?

  • We hope that you do not tell others about the experimental stage. Thank you!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Penttinen, M., Anto, E. & Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. Conceptual Change, Text Comprehension and Eye Movements During Reading. Res Sci Educ 43, 1407–1434 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9313-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9313-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation