Eye-Tracking Students' Attention to PowerPoint Photographs in a Science Education Setting

Abstract

Eye-tracking technology allows for the determination of the exact location of the point of gaze of a subject's eye. This study sought to take advantage of this ability to determine how students attend to science related photographs. Pre-service science teachers were shown a PowerPointTM Presentation with embedded photographs. The photographs were classified according the Pozzer and Roth (2003) classification scheme. Special focus was given to the photographs classified as complimentary, most highly integrated with the text, and decorative, the least integrated with the text. A second variable, accompanying audio narration, was integrated into the study design. Analysis indicated complimentary photographs received significantly more attention from the subjects. The effect of audio narration was to blur this distinction as students spent a greater amount of time on the given slides. Using eye-tracking technology, this study was able to confirm that students' devote more attention to highly relevant photographs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (1999). Human memory, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carney, R. N., and Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review 14: 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carrell, L. J., and Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education 50: 230–240.

    Google Scholar 

  4. CEO Forum. (2000). The power of digital learning: Integrating digital content (Year Three Report), Washington, DC.

  5. Chapman, B. (2003). Product shootout: PowerPoint to e-learning. Training 40–42.

  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Duchowski, A. T. (2003). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific text. In Pearson, P. D. (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, Longman, New York, pp. 641–668.

  9. Henderson, J. M., and Hollingsworth, A. (1998). Eye movements during scene viewing: An overview. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 269–294.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and Substance in In-Service Teacher Education (No. research monograph no. 13), National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.

  12. Kramer, S. H., and Rosenthal, R. (1999). Effect sizes and significance levels in small-sample research. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 60–79.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Martin, R. C., Wogalter, M. S., and Forlano, J. G. (1988). Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music. Journal of Memory and Language 27(4): 382–398.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Mulitmedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Education Psychologist 32: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Murray, C. (2003). Study reveals shift in digital divide for students, pp. 36–37.

  17. Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4: 227–233.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Petersen, R. (2003). “Real world” connections through videoconferencing—We're closer than you think! TechTrends 44: 5–11.

  20. Pozzer, L. L., and Roth, W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40: 1089–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rayner, K., Rotello, C. M., Stewart, A. J., Keir, J., and Duffy, S. A. (2001). Integrating text and pictorial information: Eye movements when looking at print advertisements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 7: 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J. J. G. V., and Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10: 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tai, R. H., Loeher, J. F., and Brigham, F. J. (2004). Introduction to the use of eye-gaze tracking to study participant behavior during problem-solving. In NARST (Ed.), Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, NARST, Vancouver, BC.

  24. The beast of complexity. (2001). The Economist. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cym?story_id=568249&no_na_tran=1.

  25. Tufte, E. R. (2003). The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint, Graphics Press LLC, Chesire, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye Movements and Vision, Plenum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Slykhuis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Slykhuis, D.A., Wiebe, E.N. & Annetta, L.A. Eye-Tracking Students' Attention to PowerPoint Photographs in a Science Education Setting. J Sci Educ Technol 14, 509–520 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-0225-z

Download citation

Key Words

  • eye-tracking
  • educational photographs
  • instructional technology
  • multimedia