Abstract
This study sought to assess the representational format of task options in the representational variant of the force concept Inventory (R-FCI) test, namely its impact on students’ problem-solving approaches. This was done with the help of eye-tracking equipment. 35 high-school students solved four tasks, mainly from the R-FCI test, which sought to assess the student’s understanding of Newton’s 1st and 2nd Law of Motion. As they were trying to solve the problems, their gazes were tracked by TobiiTX300. A comparison between students who provided the correct and incorrect answer was subsequently carried out. The correctly answering students very quickly found the correct solution both in verbal and graph representation. For motion map representation, they usually compared and made decision between two options. The incorrectly answering students did not show any consistent strategy except they paid the least attention to the correct answer. Moreover, two case stud studies of correctly and incorrectly answering students were described.
References
Bojko, A. (2013). Eye tracking the user experience: A practical guide to research. Brooklyn, New York: Rosenfeld Media.
Chen, S., She, H., Chuang, M., Wu, J., Tsai, J. & Jung, T. (2014). Eye movements predict students’ computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities. Computers & Education, 74, 61–72.
Duchowski, A. (2006). Eye tracking methodology. Theory and practice. 2nd edition. London: Springer.
Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E. & Saljo, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 523–552.
Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A. & Viiri, J. (2010). Force concept inventorybased multiple choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6, 020109.
Hestenes, D. (1997). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. In The changing role of physics departments in modern universities. Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, College Park, 1996, AIP Conference Proceedings No. 399, New York.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Chi, M.T. H., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
Jouni, V., Kekule, M., Isoniemi, J. & Hautala, J. (2017). Eye-tracking the effects of representation on students’ problem solving approaches In Proceedings of the annual FMSERA symposium 2016 (pp. 88–98). Finnish Mathematics and Science Education Research Association (FMSERA). Retrieved from https://journal.fi/fmsera/article/view/60941/27043
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.
Kekule, M. (2014). Výzkum pomocí oční kamery ve fyzikálním vzdělávání. Scientia in educatione, 5(2), 58–73.
Kekule, M. (2015). Qualitative approach of eye-tracking research in science education. In F. Dabaj (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on Contemporary Issues in Education (104–111). Dubai, UAE.
Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. & Hegarthy, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science, 31, 549–579.
Madsen, A.M. et al. (2012). Difference in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8, 010122.
Mareš, J. & Slavík, V. (1989). Dotazník stylu učení (Learning Style Inventory – LSI). Price Systems, Inc.
Ohno, E., Shimojo, A. & Iwata, Mi. (2016). Analysis of problem solving processes in physics based on eye-movement data in key competences in physics teaching and learning. In Proceedings of GIREP 2015 conference. University of Wroclav.
Smith, A., Mestre, J. & Ross, B. (2010). Eye-gaze patterns as students study worked-out examples in mechanics. Physical Review Special Topics – PER, 6, 020118.