Instruction-based clinical eye-tracking study on the visual interpretation of divergence : how do students look at vector field plots?

Relating mathematical concepts to graphical representations is a challenging task for students. In this paper, we introduce two visual strategies to qualitatively interpret the divergence of graphical vector field representations. One strategy is based on the graphical interpretation of partial derivatives, while the other is based on the flux concept. We test the effectiveness of both strategies in an instruction-based eye-tracking study with N = 41 physics majors. We found that students’ performance improved when both strategies were introduced (74% correct) instead of only one strategy (64% correct), and students performed best when they were free to choose between the two strategies (88% correct). This finding supports the idea of introducing multiple representations of a physical concept to foster student understanding.Relevant eye-tracking measures demonstrate that both strategies imply different visual processing of the vector field plots, therefore reflecting conceptual differences between the strategies. Advanced analysis methods further reveal significant differences in eye movements between the best and worst performing students. For instance, the best students performed predominantly horizontal and vertical saccades, indicating correct interpretation of partial derivatives. They also focused on smaller regions when they balanced positive and negative flux. This mixed method research leads to new insights into student visual processing of vector field representations, highlights the advantages and limitations of eye-tracking methodologies in this context, and discusses implications for teaching and for future research. The introduction of saccadic direction analysis expands traditional methods, and shows the potential to discover new insights into student understanding and learning difficulties.

[1]  Mieke De Cock,et al.  Student Difficulties Regarding Symbolic and Graphical Representations of Vector Fields. , 2017 .

[2]  Lei Bao,et al.  Eye-tracking of visual attention in web-based assessment using the Force Concept Inventory , 2017 .

[3]  M. Planinic,et al.  Graphical representations of data improve student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: An eye-tracking study , 2017 .

[4]  C. Baily,et al.  Qualitative investigation into students' use of divergence and curl in electromagnetism , 2016 .

[5]  Andreas Dengel,et al.  Entropy based transition analysis of eye movement on physics representational competence , 2016, UbiComp Adjunct.

[6]  M. D. Cock,et al.  Students' difficulties with vector calculus in electrodynamics , 2015, 1502.02830.

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

[8]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Eye movements predict students' computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[9]  Maria Caterina Tornatora,et al.  An Eye-Tracking Study of Learning From Science Text With Concrete and Abstract Illustrations , 2013 .

[10]  C. Singh,et al.  Core Graduate Courses: A Missed Learning Opportunity? , 2013, 1601.05469.

[11]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Sense Making Alone Doesn't Do It: Fluency Matters Too! ITS Support for Robust Learning with Multiple Representations , 2012, ITS.

[12]  Jouni Viiri,et al.  Relations between Representational Consistency, Conceptual Understanding of the Force Concept, and Scientific Reasoning. , 2012 .

[13]  Lester C. Loschky,et al.  Differences in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems , 2012 .

[14]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism , 2012 .

[15]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[16]  R. Säljö,et al.  Expertise Differences in the Comprehension of Visualizations: a Meta-Analysis of Eye-Tracking Research in Professional Domains , 2011 .

[17]  Jose P. Mestre,et al.  Eye-Gaze Patterns as Students Study Worked-out Examples in Mechanics. , 2010 .

[18]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Interactive and Non-Interactive Pictures in Multimedia Learning Environments: Effects on Learning Outcomes and Learning Efficiency , 2009 .

[19]  Tom Foulsham,et al.  Turning the world around: Patterns in saccade direction vary with picture orientation , 2008, Vision Research.

[20]  N. Finkelstein,et al.  Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving , 2008 .

[21]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Spatial Visualization in Physics Problem Solving , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  M. Chi Two Approaches to the Study of Experts' Characteristics , 2006 .

[23]  Eugenia Etkina,et al.  Case Study: Students’ Use of Multiple Representations in Problem Solving , 2006 .

[24]  Elizabeth Gire,et al.  Is Instructional Emphasis on the Use of Non‐Mathematical Representations Worth the Effort? , 2006 .

[25]  Noah D. Finkelstein,et al.  Effect of Instructional Environment on Physics Students' Representational Skills. , 2006 .

[26]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices break down , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[27]  David E. Meltzer,et al.  Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format , 2005 .

[28]  T. Gog,et al.  Uncovering Expertise-Related Differences in Troubleshooting Performance: Combining Eye Movement and Concurrent Verbal Protocol Data , 2005 .

[29]  A. Karimi,et al.  Master‟s thesis , 2011 .

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

[31]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  Examining the Effects of Different Multiple Representational Systems in Learning Primary Mathematics , 2002 .

[32]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Automated Eye-Movement Protocol Analysis , 2001, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols , 2000, ETRA.

[34]  R. Kozma,et al.  The Roles of Representations and Tools in the Chemistry Laboratory and Their Implications for Chemistry Learning , 2000 .

[35]  Peter C.-H. Cheng,et al.  Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems , 1999, Comput. Educ..

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

[37]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[38]  Robert J. Dufresne,et al.  Solving physics problems with multiple representations , 1997 .

[39]  J. Hoffman,et al.  The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  K. Rayner Eye Movements and Visual Cognition , 1992 .

[41]  A. V. Heuvelen,et al.  Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research‐based instructional strategies , 1991 .

[42]  H. Collewijn,et al.  Binocular co‐ordination of human horizontal saccadic eye movements. , 1988, The Journal of physiology.

[43]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics , 1987 .

[44]  M. Just,et al.  Eye fixations and cognitive processes , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.