This study aimed to investigate the types of justification (evidence or mechanism) undergraduate and graduate students' focused on during reading multiple texts (recorded by eye tracking) and orally presenting their suggestions for the energy policy about reducing carbon emission. Forty seven participants (23 non-science and 24 science majors) were recruited to participate this study. The reading material included 12 pages with textual information and 2 pages with summarizing graphical information. In the 12 pages with textual information, the amount of carbon emission and the way to reduce it regarding fossil fuels, renewable and nuclear energy were presented. Through K-means clustering, the content of participants' oral presentation was categorized into three groups, namely, emphasizing evidence, balanced (focused more on mechanism and supplementary description), and additional information (prior knowledge or critiques). The preliminary results show an association between oral presentation and eye movement indices. The group that emphasized evidence spent more time on evidence and transited more often among evidence during reading. The balanced group spent more time on mechanism and supplementary description and transited more often among mechanism. Science majors tended to focused more on evidence while non-science majors' oral presentation was more balanced.
|Effective start/end date||2019/08/01 → 2020/10/31|
- socio-scientific issues
- multiple text integration
- argument justification
- reading process
Explore the research topics touched on by this project. These labels are generated based on the underlying awards/grants. Together they form a unique fingerprint.