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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In 13 of 14 trials coded from both sources, protocol and fixation analysis agreed on the primary representation used. → Mike Stieff 2011 q3 i? On model-reported trials students also viewed the graph (5.3 sec average) and equations (3.2 sec average), showing protocols underestimate attention to multiple representations. → Mike Stieff 2011 (2)

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

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Focused Question #4 analysis of the ten-participant interview, reported in Table 5. "a high level of agreement between the conclusions from the independent coding"; disagreement occurred on only one trial.

"there was a high level of agreement between the conclusions from the independent coding based on the verbal protocols and eye fixation data"

Mike Stieff 2011 (2)¶

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

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Figure 4 analysis of mean viewing times on Question #4 trials grouped by protocol-identified primary representation (8 graph, 4 model, 2 equation trials). "they spent an average of 21.7 sec viewing the model, but also spent 5.3 sec on average viewing the graph".

"on trials in which participants reported using the model to derive their answer, they spent an average of 21.7 sec viewing the model, but also spent 5.3 sec on average viewing the graph and 3.2 sec on average viewing the equations"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students allocated roughly equal attention to the graph and the molecular model, both above chance, while attending little to the equations — 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
• 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
• Eye transition data showed students made saccades between representations, indicating attempts to relate and integrate information rather than relying only on the model — related
• Frequent eye transitions between graph and problem statement were marginally associated with correct answers
• Contrasting problems show a graph can help on one problem and harm on another: verbal data reveal both more active graph use and more shallow, confident confirmation when graphs were present — related