Understanding Student Success in Chemistry Using Gaze Tracking and Pupillometry

  • Joshua Peterson
  • Zachary Pardos
  • Martina Rau
  • Anna Swigart
  • Colin Gerber
  • Jonathan McKinsey
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9112)

Abstract

Eye tracking allows us to identify visual strategies through gaze behavior, which can help us understand how students process content. Furthermore, understanding which visual strategies are successful can help us improve educational materials that foster successful use of these visual strategies. Previous studies have demonstrated the predictive value of eye tracking for student performance. Chemistry is a highly visual domain, making it particularly appropriate to study visual strategies. Eye tracking also provides measures of pupil dilation that correlate with cognitive processes important to learning, but have not yet been assessed in any realistic learning environments. We examined the gaze behavior and pupil dilation of undergraduate students working with a specialized ITS for chemistry: Chem Tutor. Chem Tutor emphasizes visual learning by focusing specifically on graphical representations. We assessed the value of over 40 high-level gaze features along with measures of pupil diameter to predict student performance and learning gains across an entire chemistry problem set. We found that certain gaze features are strong predictors of performance, but less so of learning gains, while pupil diameter is marginally predictive of learning gains, but not performance. Further studies that assess pupil dilation with higher temporal precision will be necessary to draw conclusions about the limits of its predictive power.

Keywords

Eye tracking Intelligent tutoring systems Performance prediction Chem tutor 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Poole, A., Ball, L.J.: Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research: Current Status and Future. Prospects. Chapter in Ghaoui, C. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Idea Group Inc, Pennsylvania (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tai, R.H., Loehr, J.F., Brigham, F.J.: 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 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsai, M.-J., Hou, H.-T., Lai, M.-L., Liu, W.-Y., Yang, F.-Y.: Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education. 58, 375–385 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gluck, K.A., Anderson, J.R., Douglass, S.A.: Broader bandwidth in student modeling: what if ITS were ``Eye’’ TS? In: Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., VanLehn, K. (eds.) Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 504–513. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loboda, T.D., Brusilovsky, P.: User-adaptive explanatory program visualization: evaluation and insights from eye movements. User Model User-Adap Inter. 20, 191–226 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conati, C., Jaques, N., Muir, M.: Understanding Attention to Adaptive Hints in Educational Games: An Eye-Tracking Study. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 23, 136–161 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gomes, J.S., Yassine, M., Worsley, M., Blikstein, P.: Analysing Engineering Expertise of High School Students Using Eye Tracking and Multimodal Learning AnalyticsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, H.-K., Shah, P.: Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Sci. Ed. 88, 465–492 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beatty, J.: Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological bulletin. 91, 276 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zekveld, A.A., Festen, J.M., Kramer, S.E.: Task difficulty differentially affects two measures of processing load: The pupil response during sentence processing and delayed cued recall of the sentences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 56, 1156–1165 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bornemann, B., Foth, M., Horn, J., Ries, J., Warmuth, E., Wartenburger, I., van der Meer, E.: Mathematical cognition: individual differences in resource allocation. ZDM 42, 555–567 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wierda, S.M., van Rijn, H., Taatgen, N.A., Martens, S.: Pupil dilation deconvolution reveals the dynamics of attention at high temporal resolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8456–8460 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist 38, 1–4 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schultheis, H., Jameson, A.: Assessing cognitive load in adaptive hypermedia systems: physiological and behavioral methods. In: De Bra, P.M., Nejdl, W. (eds.) AH 2004. LNCS, vol. 3137, pp. 225–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conati, C., Merten, C.: Eye-tracking for user modeling in exploratory learning environments: An empirical evaluation. Knowledge-Based Systems. 20, 557–574 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iqbal, S.T., Bailey, B.P.: Using eye gaze patterns to identify user tasks. The Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, pp. 5–10 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rau, M.A., Michaelis, J.E., Fay, N.: Connection making between multiple graphical representations: A multi-methods approach for domain-specific grounding of an intelligent tutoring system for chemistry. Computers & Education 82, 460–485 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, C.I., Mayer, R.E.: An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 18, 178 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M.C.: Effects of picture labeling on science text processing and learning: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Research Quarterly 48, 199–214 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koedinger, K.R., Baker, R.Sj., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., Leber, B., Stamper, J.: A data repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop. Handbook of educational data mining 43 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ainsworth, S.: DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16, 183–198 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Peterson
    • 1
  • Zachary Pardos
    • 1
  • Martina Rau
    • 2
  • Anna Swigart
    • 1
  • Colin Gerber
    • 1
  • Jonathan McKinsey
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyCalifornia
  2. 2.Department of Educational Psychology, University of WisconsinMadisonWisconsin

Personalised recommendations