• Hsin Ning Jessie Ho
  • Meng-Jung Tsai
  • Ching-Yeh Wang
  • Chin-Chung TsaiEmail author


This study employed eye-tracking technology to examine how students with different levels of prior knowledge process text and data diagrams when reading a web-based scientific report. Students’ visual behaviors were tracked and recorded when they read a report demonstrating the relationship between the greenhouse effect and global climate change in 2 diagrams and 4 textual sections. Based on the pretest scores, 13 participants were categorized into high and low prior knowledge (PK) groups. Eye-tracking measures including the total reading time, total fixation duration, and total regression number on each area of interest of the 2 groups were compared. A heat map was further used to show the overall visual distribution of each group. In addition, the inter-scanning transitions between the textual and graphical information of the 2 groups were compared and further confirmed by the patterns of the scan paths. The results revealed that overall students spent more time reading the textual than the graphical information. The high PK students showed longer fixation durations and more regressions on the graphics than the low PK students. Meanwhile, the high PK students showed more inter-scanning transitions than the low PK students not only between the text and graphics but also between the 2 data diagrams. This suggests that the high PK students were more able to integrate text and graphic information and inspect scientific data which is essential for online inquiry learning. This study provides eye-tracking evidence to show that low PK students have difficulties integrating scientific diagrams with expository texts and inspecting scientific data diagrams that are commonly shown in websites. Suggestions are made for future studies and instructional design for online inquiry-based science learning.

Key words

eye tracking inquiry-based data inspection prior knowledge text-graphic integration web-based science reading 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.Google Scholar
  2. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chase, W. G. & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R. E. & Clark, V. P. (2010), From Neo-Behaviorism to neuroscience: Perspectives on the origins and future contributions of cognitive load research. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Bruken (Eds.), Cognitive load: Theory and application. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, R. E. & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 464–478). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E. & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, K. H., Rikers, M. J. P. R. & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ericsson, K. A. & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E. & Saljo, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 523–552Google Scholar
  12. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14, 462–466.Google Scholar
  13. Hannus, M. &Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high- ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A. & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Person (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Hegarty, M. & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from texts and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S. & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners’ science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N. & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyona, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172–176.Google Scholar
  19. Hyona, J., Lorch, J. R. F. & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ikpeze, C. H. & Boyd, F. B. (2007). Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 644–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levie, W. H. & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30, 195–232.Google Scholar
  27. Liu, X., Gale, A., & Song, T. (2007). Detection of terrorist threats in air passenger luggage: Expertise development. In: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (pp. 301–306). Ottawa, Canada: Editor.Google Scholar
  28. Mareno, R., Ozogul, G. & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C. & Ariasi, N. (2013a). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C. & Pluchino, P. (2013b). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.Google Scholar
  32. Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E. & Gallini, J. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, K., Rasch, T. & Schnotz, W. (2010). Effects of animation’s speed of presentation on perceptual processing and learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 136–145.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual approach. New York: New Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A. & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K. & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227–1243.Google Scholar
  43. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A. & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The reading teacher, 55(7), 662–669.Google Scholar
  45. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. K. G. & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsai, M.-J., Hsu, C.-Y. & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Investigation of high school students’ online searching performance: The role of implicit and explicit approaches. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P. & Paas, F. (2009a). Attention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 785–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B. & Paas, F. (2009b). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Gog, T., Paas, F. & van Merrienboer, J. K. G. (2005). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Gog, T. & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.Google Scholar
  51. Weber, N. & Brewer, N. (2003). Expert memory: The interaction of stimulus structure, attention, and expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yore, L. D. & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading in science: Developing an operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hsin Ning Jessie Ho
    • 1
  • Meng-Jung Tsai
    • 1
  • Ching-Yeh Wang
    • 2
  • Chin-Chung Tsai
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and EducationNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Applied Science and TechnologyNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations