Test-takers' eye movements: Effects of integration aids and types of graphical representations

The study focuses on integration aids (i.e., signals) and their effect on how students process different types of graphical representations (representational pictures vs. organizational pictures vs. diagrams) in standardized multiple-choice items assessing science achievement. Based on text-picture integration theories each type of pictorial representation hold different cognitive requirements concerning integration processes of two representations. Further, depending on type of representation not every picture is needed to answer an item correctly.Students from fifth sixth grade (N=60) work through 12 multiple choice items while their eye movements were recorded. Results showed that students achieved higher test scores when items were presented in an integrated format than in a non-integrated format, however, this was only true for diagrams. Eye movement data revealed that students looked longer on the graphical representations in items presented in the integrated format condition compared to the non-integrated format condition. Furthermore, relations between looking at the diagrams and achievement in the integrated format emerged. Eye-tracking data revealed differential pattern depending on item format.Students fixated longer on graphical representations in an integrated format.Fixation time on diagrams is related to achievement.

[1]  Patrik Pluchino,et al.  Effects of Picture Labeling on Science Text Processing and Learning: Evidence From Eye Movements , 2013 .

[2]  Alexander Eitel,et al.  Identifying processes underlying the multimedia effect in testing: An eye-movement analysis , 2017 .

[3]  Florian Schmidt-Weigand,et al.  Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students' viewing behaviour , 2010 .

[4]  J. Hyönä,et al.  Utilization of Illustrations during Learning of Science Textbook Passages among Low- and High-Ability Children. , 1999, Contemporary educational psychology.

[5]  Ina V. S. Mullis,et al.  TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. , 2012 .

[6]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The functions of multiple representations , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Andreas Schleicher,et al.  PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World , 2007 .

[8]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Commentary: Towards an Integrated View of Learning from Text and Visual Displays , 2002 .

[9]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  An Eye Tracking Comparison of External Pointing Cues and Internal Continuous Cues in Learning with Complex Animations , 2010 .

[10]  Rolf Ploetzner,et al.  What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity , 2010 .

[11]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis , 2016 .

[12]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[13]  Steffani Saß,et al.  Helping Poor Readers Demonstrate Their Science Competence , 2016 .

[14]  Erin M. McTigue,et al.  The Frequency, Variation, and Function of Graphical Representations within Standardized State Science Tests , 2009 .

[15]  S. Ainsworth,et al.  Do student perceptions of teaching predict the development of representational competence and biological knowledge , 2014 .

[16]  S. Ainsworth.  DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[17]  Huei-Tse Hou,et al.  Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[18]  John Sweller,et al.  Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load , 2005 .

[19]  Inger Marie Dalehefte,et al.  Assessing scientific literacy over the lifespan - a description of the NEPS science framework and the test development , 2013 .

[20]  W. Schnotz,et al.  Strategy Shifts during Learning from Texts and Pictures. , 2014 .

[21]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction , 1999 .

[22]  K. Holmqvist,et al.  Reading Information Graphics: the Role of Spatial Contiguity and Dual Attentional Guidance , 2022 .

[23]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  Mentale Modelle und Effekte der Präsentations- und Abrufkodalität beim Lernen mit Multimedia , 2001 .

[24]  Erol Özçelik,et al.  An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[25]  A. Paivio.  Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[26]  Tina Seufert.  Supporting Coherence Formation in Learning from Multiple Representations , 2003 .

[27]  W. Howard Levie,et al.  Effects of text illustrations: A review of research , 1982 .

[28]  Erol Özçelik,et al.  Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  Cheryl I. Johnson,et al.  An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[30]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[31]  K. Scheiter,et al.  Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements , 2015 .

[32]  R. Mayer.  Systematic Thinking Fostered by Illustrations in Scientific Text , 1989 .

[33]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[34]  Yueh-Nu Hung.  “WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT?” AN EYE MOVEMENT EXPLORATION IN SCIENCE TEXT READING , 2014 .

[35]  Jörg Wittwer,et al.  Pictures in Test Items: Effects on Response Time and Response Correctness , 2012 .

[36]  M. Bannert,et al.  Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation , 2003 .

[37]  Patrik Pluchino,et al.  Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[38]  M. A. Lindner,et al.  How Representational Pictures Enhance Students’ Performance and Test-Taking Pleasure in Low-Stakes Assessment , 2018, European Journal of Psychological Assessment.

[39]  Russell N. Carney,et al.  Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students' Learning from Text , 2002 .

[40]  Jacqueline P. Leighton,et al.  Reasoning and Problem Solving , 2003 .

[41]  Marlit Annalena Lindner,et al.  Tracking the Decision-Making Process in Multiple-Choice Assessment: Evidence from Eye Movements , 2014 .

[42]  Fang Zhao,et al.  Eye Tracking Indicators of Reading Approaches in Text-Picture Comprehension , 2014 .

[43]  J. Sweller.  Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[44]  Susan E. Embretson,et al.  Effects of Reducing the Cognitive Load of Mathematics Test Items on Student Performance , 2017 .

[45]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  Learning from multiple representations: An examination of fixation patterns in a science simulation , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[46]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[47]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987 .

[48]  Yu-Cin Jian,et al.  Using Eye Tracking to Investigate Semantic and Spatial Representations of Scientific Diagrams During Text-Diagram Integration , 2015 .

[49]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: visualization effects on mental model construction , 2008 .