In one eye-tracking experiment, revising math-relevant visuals changes fixation length on them differently by prior knowledge group, with shorter fixations under the revised visuals for low prior knowledge students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Average fixation length on math-relevant visuals showed a condition by prior knowledge interaction, F(2, 51) = 8.58, p < .001, with low prior knowledge students showing longer fixations in the original condition, middle prior knowledge students shorter in the original, and high prior knowledge students longer in the original. → Clinton 2017

Evidence¶

Clinton 2017¶

Clinton, V., Cooper, J.L., Michaelis, J., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M.J. (2017). How Revisions to Mathematical Visuals Affect Cognition: Evidence from Eye Tracking. In Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 195-218). IGI Global. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574984 doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1005-5.ch010

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Same eye-tracking experiment; analyses of average fixation length on math-relevant visuals present in both conditions. The interaction was significant; for low prior knowledge students fixation length "was longer in the original condition than in the revised condition".

"Similar to the text analyses, there was an interaction of condition and prior knowledge on average fixation length on the math-relevant visuals, F(2, 51) = 8.58, p < .001 (see Figure 2). For participants in the low prior knowledge group, the average fixation length for math-relevant visuals was longer in the original condition than in the revised condition F(1, 21) = 5.53, p = .02."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
• Visual Processing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Revised visuals reduce cognitive load while reading lesson text for low prior knowledge students but increase it for middle prior knowledge students — related
• Revised visuals reduce cognitive processing of math-relevant visuals for low prior knowledge students but increase it for middle prior knowledge students — related
• Revised visuals reduce cognitive processing of lesson text for low prior knowledge students but increase it for middle prior knowledge students — related
• Revisions to visuals had no effect on post-lesson test scores, though prior knowledge predicted performance — related