Advertisement

EYE MOVEMENTS REVEAL STUDENTS’ STRATEGIES IN SIMPLE EQUATION SOLVING

  • ANA SUSAC
  • ANDREJA BUBIC
  • JURICA KAPONJA
  • MAJA PLANINIC
  • MARIJAN PALMOVIC
Article

Abstract

Equation rearrangement is an important skill required for problem solving in mathematics and science. Eye movements of 40 university students were recorded while they were rearranging simple algebraic equations. The participants also reported on their strategies during equation solving in a separate questionnaire. The analysis of the behavioral and eye tracking data, namely the accuracy, reaction times, and the number of fixations, revealed that the participants improved their performance during the time course of the measurement. The type of equation also had a significant effect on the score. The results indicated that the number of fixations represents a reliable and sensitive measure that can give valuable insights into participants’ flow of attention during equation solving. A correlation between the number of fixations and participants’ efficiency in equation solving was found, suggesting that the more efficient participants developed adequate strategies, i.e. “knew where to look.” The comparison of eye movement data and questionnaire reports was used for assessing the validity of participants’ metacognitive insights. The measures derived from eye movement data were found to be more objective and reliable than the participants’ reports. These results indicate that the measurement of eye movements provides insights into otherwise unavailable cognitive processes and may be used for exploring problem difficulty, student expertise, and metacognitive processes.

Key words

algebra equations expertise eye tracking inverse efficiency metacognition number of fixations problem difficulty strategy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. & Gluck, K. (2001). What role do cognitive architectures play in intelligent tutoring systems? In V. Klahr & S. M. Carver (Eds.), Cognition & instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 227–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Ariasi, N. & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39, 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brysbaert, M. & Vitu, F. (1998). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and sceen perception (pp. 125–148). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesney, D. L., McNeil, N. M., Brockmole, J. R. & Kelley, K. (2013). An eye for relations: eye-tracking indicates long-term negative effects of operational thinking on understanding of math equivalence. Memory & Cognition, 41, 1079–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohors-Fresenborg, E., Kramer, S., Pundsack, F., Sjuts, J. & Sommer, N. (2010). The role of metacognitive monitoring in explaining differences in mathematics achievement. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N. & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92, 848–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Corte, E., Verschaffel, L. & Pauwels, A. (1990). Influence of the semantic structure of word problems on second graders’ eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 359–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., Desmet, T. & De Baecke, C. (2004). Word skipping in reading: On the interplay of linguistic and visual factors. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Epelboim, J. & Suppes, P. (2001). A model of eye movements and visual working memory during problem solving in geometry. Vision Research, 41, 1561–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E. & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 523–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant, E. R. & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14, 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1084–1102.Google Scholar
  14. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E. & Green, C. E. (1992). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: Evidence from students’ eye fixations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Inhoff, A. W. & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and sceen perception (pp. 29–54). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jansen, A. R., Marriott, K. & Yelland, G. W. (2007). Parsing of algebraic expressions by experienced users of mathematics. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 286–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S. & Raney, E. G. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kramarski, B. & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landy, D., Jones, M. N., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). How the appearance of an operator affects its mathematical precedence. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Washington DC, USA (pp. 2109–2114). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  21. Liu, C. J. & Shen, M. H. (2011). The influence of different representations on solving concentration problems at elementary school. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 621–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, H. C., Lai, M. L. & Chuang, H. H. (2011). Using eye-tracking technology to investigate the redundant effect of multimedia web pages on viewers’ cognitive processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2410–2417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madsen, A. M., Larson, A. M., Loschky, L. C. & Rebello, N. S. (2012). Differences in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8, 010122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Madsen, A. M., Rouinfar, A., Larson, A.M., Loschky, L. C. & Rebello, N.S. (2013). Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9, 020104-1–020104-16Google Scholar
  25. Maltese, A. V., Balliet, R. N. & Riggs, E. M. (2013). Through their eyes: Tracking the gaze of students in a geology field course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, L., Pluchino, P. & Tornatora, M. C. (2013a). Effects of picture labeling on science text processing and learning: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C. & Pluchino, P. (2013b). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merkley, R. & Ansari, D. (2010). Using eye tracking to study numerical cognition: The case of the ratio effect. Experimental Brain Research, 206, 455–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moeller, K., Fischer, M. H., Nuerk, H. C. & Willmes, K. (2009). Sequential or parallel decomposed processing of two-digit numbers? Evidence from eye-tracking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moeller, K., Klein, E., Nuerk, H. C. & Willmes, K. (2011). Three processes underlying the carry effect in addition—Evidence from eye tracking. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 623–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nitschke, K., Ruh, N., Kappler, S., Stahl, C. & Kaller, C. P. (2012). Dissociable stages of problem solving (I): Temporal characteristics revealed by eye-movement analyses. Brain and Cognition, 80, 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patrick, M., Carter, G. & Wiebe, E. (2005). Visual representations of DNA replication: Middle grades students’ perceptions and interpretations. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 14, 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Qin, Y., Carter, C. S., Silk, E., Stenger, V. A., Fissell, K., Goode, A. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). The change of the brain activation patterns as children learn algebra equation solving. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 101, 5686–5691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M. & Stampe, D. M. (2001). Visual span in expert chess players: Evidence from eye movements. Psychological Science, 12, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Cañas, J. J., Madrid, R. I. & Fajardo, I. (2009). Do graphical overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext? Computers & Education, 53, 1308–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. San Diego, J. P., Aczel, J. C., Hodgson, B. K. & Scanlon, E. (2012). Digital approaches to researching learners’ computer interactions using gazes, actions, utterances and sketches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 859–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider, E., Maruyama, M., Dehaene, S. & Sigman, M. (2012). Eye gaze reveals a fast, parallel extraction of the syntax of arithmetic formulas. Cognition, 125, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. She, H. S. & Chen, Y. Z. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements. Computers & Education, 53, 1297–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, A. D., Mestre, J. P. & Ross, B. H. (2010). Eye-gaze patterns as students study worked-out examples in mechanics. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 6, 020118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sohn, M. H., Goode, A., Koedinger, K. R., Stenger, V. A., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Behavioral equivalence but not neural equivalence: Neural evidence of alternative strategies in mathematical thinking. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1193–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tai, R. H., Loehr, F. J. & Brigham, F. J. (2006). An exploration of the use of eye-gaze tracking to study problem-solving on standardized science assessments. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tang, H. & Pienta, N. (2012). Eye-tracking study of complexity in gas law problems. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 988–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Terry, P. W. (1992). The reading problem in arithmetic. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas, L. E. & Lleras, A. (2007). Moving eyes and moving thought: On the spatial compatibility between eye movements and cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 663–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Townsend, J. T. & Ashby, F. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In N. J. Castellan Jr. & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Volume IIIth ed., pp. 199–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. 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, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Gog, T. & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J. & Verheij, J. (2003). Learning styles: Self-reports versus thinking aloud measures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williamson, V. M., Hegarty, M., Deslongchamps, G., Williamson, K. C. & Shultz, M. J. (2013). Identifying student use of ball-and-stick images versus electrostatic potential map images via eye tracking. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • ANA SUSAC
    • 1
  • ANDREJA BUBIC
    • 2
  • JURICA KAPONJA
    • 1
  • MAJA PLANINIC
    • 1
  • MARIJAN PALMOVIC
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Physics, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Chair for Psychology, Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of SplitSplitCroatia
  3. 3.Laboratory for Psycholinguistic Research, Department of Speech and Language PathologyUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations