• Chiara AndráEmail author
  • Paulina Lindström
  • Ferdinando Arzarello
  • Kenneth Holmqvist
  • Ornella Robutti
  • Cristina Sabena


We use eye tracking as a method to examine how different mathematical representations of the same mathematical object are attended to by students. The results of this study show that there is a meaningful difference in the eye movements between formulas and graphs. This difference can be understood in terms of the cultural and social shaping of human perception, as well as in terms of differences between the symbolic and graphical registers.

Key words

Eye tracking Mathematical representations Semiotics Visual perception 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2013_9484_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (945 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 944 kb)


  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrà, C., Arzarello, F., Ferrara, F., Holmqvist, K., Lindström, P., Robutti, O. & Sabena, C. (2009). How students read mathematical representations: an eye tracking study. Proceedings of the XXXIII conference of the psychology of math education. Thessaloniki, GR.Google Scholar
  3. Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24–35.Google Scholar
  4. Arzarello, F., Ascari, M., Thomas, M. & Yoon, C. (2011). Teaching practice: a comparison of two teachers’ decision making in the mathematics classroom. In: B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 65–72). Ankara, Turkey: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluver.Google Scholar
  6. Bushwell, G. T. (1935). How people look at pictures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, P. A. & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(2), 75–100.Google Scholar
  8. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Freitas, E. & Sinclair, N. (2012). Diagram, gesture, agency: theorizing embodiment in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80.Google Scholar
  10. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray, E. & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: a “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E. & Green, C. E. (1992). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: evidence from students' eye fixations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson, J. M., Weeks, P. A., Jr. & Hollingworth, A. (1999). The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 210–228.Google Scholar
  14. Holmqvist, K., Andrá, C., Lindström, P., Arzarello, F., Ferrara, F., Robutti, O. & Sabena C. (2011). A method for quantifying focussed versus overview behaviour in AOI sequences. Behavior Research Method, 43(4), 987–998.Google Scholar
  15. Husserl, E. (1931). In: W.R. Boyce Gibson, trans., 3rd [1958] (eds.), Ideas. General introduction to pure phenomenology. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, interference and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kieran, C. (1988). Two different approaches among algebra learners. In A. F. Coxford (Ed.), The ideas of algebras. Yearbook 1988, K-12. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  20. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S. & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 29(7), 1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G. & Núñez, R. (2000). Where does mathematics come from. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, P. L. (1962). Visual threshold during eye movements. Vision Research, 2, 261–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K. & Lopez-Real, F. (2006). Mathematics Education in Different Cultural Traditions- A Comparative Study of East Asia and the West: The 13th ICMI Study. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. Levinas, E. (1989). In: Sean Hand (ed), The Levinas reader, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Lindamood, P., Bell, N. & Lindamood, P. (1997). Sensory-cognitive factors in the controversy over reading instruction. Journal of Developmental Disorders, 1, 143–182.Google Scholar
  26. Loftus, G. T. & Macworth, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(4), 565–572.Google Scholar
  27. Mason, J. (2008). Being mathematical with and in front of learners: attention, awareness, and attitude as sources of differences between teacher educators, teachers and learners. In T. Wood & B. Jaworski (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: the mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (Vol. 4, pp. 31–56). Rotterdam: Sense publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Nemirovsky, R. & Monk, S. (2000). “If you look at it the other way…” an exploration into the nature of symbolizing. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms (pp. 177–221). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  30. Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken and the written. A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
  31. Radford, L. (2010). The eye as a theoretician: seeing structures in generalizing activities. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(2), 2–7.Google Scholar
  32. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gesture in interpreting graphs. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(3), 117–126.Google Scholar
  34. Roth, W. M. (2003). Toward an anthropology of graphing: semiotic and activity-theoretic perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheiter, K. & van Gog, T. (2009). Using eye tracking in applied research to study and stimulate the process of information from multi-representational sources. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1209–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: a theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sfard, A. (2000). Symbolizing mathematical reality into being: how mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other. In P. Cobb, K. E. Yackel & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating: perspectives on mathematical discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 37–98). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Tall, D. (2002). Using Technology to Support an Embodied Approach to Learning Concepts in Mathematics. First Coloquio do Historia e Tecnologia no Ensino de Matematica at Universidade do Estrado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BR.Google Scholar
  40. Tarmizi, R. & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E. & Pauwels, A. (1992). Solving compare problems: an eye movement test of Lewis and Mayers consistency hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Volkman, F. C. (1976). Sacadic suppression: a brief review. In R. A. Monty & J. W. Senders (Eds.), Eye movements and psychological processes. Hilsdale: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Andrá
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paulina Lindström
    • 2
  • Ferdinando Arzarello
    • 1
  • Kenneth Holmqvist
    • 3
  • Ornella Robutti
    • 1
  • Cristina Sabena
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di MatematicaUniversità di TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Lund University Cognitive ScienceLundSweden
  3. 3.Humanistlaboratoriet, SOL CentrumLunds UniversitetLundSweden

Personalised recommendations