Advertisement

How Do Adults Solve Digital Tangram Problems? Analyzing Cognitive Strategies Through Eye Tracking Approach

  • Bahar Baran
  • Berrin Dogusoy
  • Kursat Cagiltay
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4552)

Abstract

Purpose of the study is to investigate how adults solve tangram based geometry problems on computer screen.Two problems with different difficulty levels were presented to 20 participants. The participants tried to solve problems by placing seven geometric objects into correct locations. In order to analyze the process, the participants and their eye movements were recorded by an Tobii Eye Tracking device while solving the problems. The results showed that the participants employed different strategies while solving problems with different difficulty levels.

Keywords

Tangram problem solving eye tracking spatial ability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Boyle, C.B., Reiser, B.J.: Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228, 456–462 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Chaim, D., Lappan, G., Houang, R.T.: The role of visualization in the middle school curriculum. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 11, 49–60 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black, A.A.: Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. J. of Geoscience Education 53(4), 402–414 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodner, G., Guay, R.: The Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test. The Chemical Educator 2(4), 1–17 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiev, W., Wang, Y.: Formal description of the cognitive process of problem solving. In: ICCI 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kayhan, E.B.: Investigation of high school students’ spatial Ability. Ms thesis. Metu, Ankara (2005) (unpublished)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kennedy, L.M., Tipps, S.: Guiding children’s learning of mathematics, 7th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Linn, M.C., Petersen, A.C.: Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development 56, 1479–1498 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matlin, M.W.: Cognition, 2nd edn. Harcourt Brace and Company (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olkun, S.: Comparing Computer versus Concrete Manipulative in Learning 2D Geometry. J. of Comp. in Math. and Sci. Teaching. 22(1), 43–56 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olkun, S., Altun, A., Smith, G.: Computers and 2D geometric learning of Turkish fourth and fifth graders. British J. of Educ. Tech. 36(2), 317–326 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tooke, D.J., Hyatt, B., Leigh, M., Snyder, B., Borda, T.: Why aren’t manipulatives used in every middle school mathematics classroom? Middle School J. 24, 61–62 (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bahar Baran
    • 1
  • Berrin Dogusoy
    • 1
  • Kursat Cagiltay
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Metu/Ankara 

Personalised recommendations