Students allocated roughly equal attention to the graph and the molecular model, both above chance, while attending little to the equations¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Viewing time on the graph and model each exceeded the chance baseline defined by screen area; the general equation received less time than chance. → Mike Stieff 2011
Evidence¶
Mike Stieff 2011¶
Mike Stieff, Mary Hegarty, Ghislain Deslongchamps. (2011). Identifying Representational Competence with Multi-Representational Displays. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2010.507318
q3 · i? · associational · r1
One-sample t tests against chance in the eye-tracking study of ten organic chemistry undergraduates. Graph (34%) and model (32%) viewing times exceeded the 18% chance baseline: "(one-sample t(9) = 6.03, p < .001 for the graph; t(9) = 4.49, p=.003 for the model)".
"The percentages of time spent viewing the graph and the model were both greater than chance, which was 18% for both of these representations, (one-sample t(9) = 6.03, p < .001 for the graph; t(9) = 4.49, p=.003 for the model)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students adapted representation choices to task: the model was viewed more for the three-dimensional dihedral animation, the graph more for the two-dimensional bending and stretching animations — related
- Eye fixation data corroborated verbal protocols on the primary representation used (disagreement on only one trial) and revealed additional representations consulted but never mentioned verbally — related
- Eye fixation measures of attention to representations were highly correlated with verbal mentions (correlations from .63 to .96), supporting both as measures of representation use — related
- Graphs drew visual attention away from text: proportion of dwell time on input and problem statement was significantly shorter when a graph was present — related
- In verbal protocols, references concentrated on the model (44.4%) and graph (39.4%) with few to the equation (16.1%), and students referenced multiple representations on 42.6% of questions — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
equal-attention-model-graph-low-equations |
title |
Students allocated roughly equal attention to the graph and the molecular model, both above chance, while attending little to the equations |
description |
Students allocated roughly equal attention to the graph and the molecular model, both above chance, while attending little to the equations |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mike-stieff-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.