1 / 18

Loredana Mihalca University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Germany Fred Paas

Expertise-related differences in task selection : Combining eye tracking measures and thinking-aloud protocols. Loredana Mihalca University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Germany Fred Paas Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Background. Surface features vs. Structural features.

fiona
Télécharger la présentation

Loredana Mihalca University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Germany Fred Paas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Expertise-related differences in task selection:Combining eye tracking measures and thinking-aloud protocols Loredana Mihalca University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Germany Fred Paas Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

  2. Background Surface features vs. Structural features • cover stories that are irrelevant for task completion • salient and easy to recognize • vs. • task aspects that are necessary to reach a solution • generally not salient • more difficult to perceive the control over selection of tasks with different structural features (Corbalan, Kester, & Van Merriënboer, 2011) Species and traits in inheritance tasksa Solution steps in inheritance tasks

  3. Background Expertise differences in perceiving structural features • The information-reduction hypothesis (Haider & Frensch, 1999): • expertise optimizes learners' attention allocation, by neglecting surface features and focusing more on structural task features • with repeated practice, ‘redundant information is perceptually ignored whenever this is possible’ (Haider & Frensch, 1999, p.188) • Learners have significantly fewer fixations of shorter duration on surface features and more fixations of longer duration on structural features.

  4. Background Questions Research questions • Does students' prior knowledge affect • performance accuracy? • selective attention allocation to task features during selection processes? • verbalizations of task features during selections? • Do students' eye fixations reveal a trade-off between surface and structural task features during the learning process? • Is there a relationship between the information revealed by eye tracking and the information revealed by thinking-aloud protocols during task selections?

  5. Background Questions Design Hypotheses • H1: high prior knowledge students will achieve a higher performance than low prior knowledge students • H2: high prior knowledge students will… • have fewer fixations of shorter duration on surface features • have more fixations of longer duration on structural features • verbalize more relevant information (structural features) • …during task selection processes than low prior knowledge students • H3: because of learning, students' viewing behavior will reveal a trade-off between surface and structural task features • H4: there will be a positive correlation between indices of visual attention and conceptual processing of task features during selection processes.

  6. Background Questions Design Participants: 26 students of higher professional education (age M = 21.15 years, SD = 2.34); • low prior knowledge students (n = 13, pre-test scores M = 4.00,SD = 1.63) • high prior knowledge students (n = 13, pre-test scores M = 8.23,SD = 1.01) t(24) = 7.94, p < .001, d = 3.12 Domain: Genetics, inheritance laws of Mendel • Tobii 1750 eye tracking system, 50 Hz frame rate • Clear View 2.7.1 • Audacity 1.2.6

  7. Procedure Training phase: 3 genetics tasks Task selections: 3 times CRR warm- up warm- up solve task solve task solve task pre-t 1 1 2 3 post-t pre-test (10 multiple-choice items) task selection (TA) post-test (10 multiple choice items) solving the selected task (no TA) • warming-up task: • Thinking-aloud (TA)

  8. Area of interest 1 Surface features Area of interest 2 Structural features

  9. Steps to reach the solution: Steps to reach the solution

  10. Learning outcomes • Training: t(24) = 1.05, n.s. • Post-test: t(24) = 5.11, p < .001, d = 2.01 • Pre-to-post-test performance gain: t(25) = - 4.28, p < .001, d = .72 • Pre-to-post-test time decrease: t(25) = 3.59, p < .001, d = .77 • increase in overall efficiency

  11. Background Questions Design Results Number of fixations on surface vs. structural features • Expertise: F < 1 • N of task selections: F(2, 46) = 3.10, p =.05 • task selection 2 < task selection 1 (p = .059) • task selection 3 < task selection 1 (p < .05) • Expertise x N of task selections: F < 1 Expertise: F < 1 N of task selections: F < 1 Expertise x N of task selections: F < 1

  12. Results Background Questions Design Fixation duration on surface vs. structural features • Expertise: F < 1 • N of task selections: F(2, 46) = 3.48, p < .05 • task selection 2 < task selection 1 (p < .05) • task selection 3 < task selection 1 (p < .05) • Expertise x N of task selections: F < 1 Expertise: F < 1 N of task selections: F < 1 Expertise x N of task selections: F < 1

  13. Background Questions Design Results Average fixation duration on surface vs. structural features Expertise: F < 1 N of task selections: F < 1 Expertise x N of task selections: F(2, 36) = 3.04, p = .06 Expertise: F < 1 N of task selections: F < 1 Expertise x N of task selections: F < 1

  14. Background Questions Design Results Verbal utterances

  15. Results Background Questions Design Eye movements and main categories of the TA protocols

  16. Results Background Questions Design Discussion Discussion • High prior knowledge students… • achieved a higher post-test performance • verbalized more task-relevant information during selection processes compare the tasks mostly based on the structural features (quality of cognitive schemas) • …than low prior knowledge students • No differences between low and high prior knowledge students in viewing behavior during task selections • longer fixation durations: productive vs. unproductive processing ? • low intrinsic cognitive load ? • less processing demands of structural task features for high prior knowledge students ?

  17. Results Background Questions Design Discussion Discussion • Significant differences in viewing behavior between the task selections • with practice, students' attention allocation is less affected by surface task features • however, the pattern of eye fixations on structural task features is more stable across task selections • Indices of visual attention were strongly related to the conceptual processing of surface vs. structural features during task selection processes • Combined used of eye tracking and thinking-aloud for a better understanding of task selection processes.

  18. Thank you for attention! For more information: mihalca@uni-landau.de

More Related