Examining the reasoning of conflicting science information from the information processing perspective—an eye movement analysis

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

4 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

The main goal of this study was to investigate how readers’ visual attention distribution during reading of conflicting science information is related to their scientific reasoning behavior. A total of 25 university students voluntarily participated in the study. They were given conflicting science information about earthquake predictions to read while their eye movements during reading were recorded by the FaceLAB eye tracking system. After reading, the participants were interviewed to probe their reasoning performance. Our study showed that when university students were asked to read and reason about conflicting science information, those who paid more cognitive attention and efforts to the text areas related to backing theory, data, and warrants demonstrated better performances in coordinating theory and evidence, identifying evidence, and providing rebuttals, compared to students who paid less attention and made fewer cognitive efforts to these areas. The association between students’ background knowledge and performance of scientific reasoning was weak. Compared to those with irrelevant backgrounds, students with relevant background knowledge tended to read more of the facts when the science information involved a simple experimental study, while their attention was directed more to data and claims when the experimental study was complicated or unfamiliar.

原文英語
頁(從 - 到)1347-1372
頁數26
期刊Journal of Research in Science Teaching
54
發行號10
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 2017 十二月 1

指紋

information processing
information science
student
performance
university
evidence
natural disaster

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

引用此文

@article{a46a93de6a27412cb6b96b10d02857e2,
title = "Examining the reasoning of conflicting science information from the information processing perspective—an eye movement analysis",
abstract = "The main goal of this study was to investigate how readers’ visual attention distribution during reading of conflicting science information is related to their scientific reasoning behavior. A total of 25 university students voluntarily participated in the study. They were given conflicting science information about earthquake predictions to read while their eye movements during reading were recorded by the FaceLAB eye tracking system. After reading, the participants were interviewed to probe their reasoning performance. Our study showed that when university students were asked to read and reason about conflicting science information, those who paid more cognitive attention and efforts to the text areas related to backing theory, data, and warrants demonstrated better performances in coordinating theory and evidence, identifying evidence, and providing rebuttals, compared to students who paid less attention and made fewer cognitive efforts to these areas. The association between students’ background knowledge and performance of scientific reasoning was weak. Compared to those with irrelevant backgrounds, students with relevant background knowledge tended to read more of the facts when the science information involved a simple experimental study, while their attention was directed more to data and claims when the experimental study was complicated or unfamiliar.",
keywords = "argumentation skills, eye movements, eye tracking, science-text reading, scientific reasoning",
author = "Fang-Ying Yang",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/tea.21408",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "1347--1372",
journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",
issn = "0022-4308",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examining the reasoning of conflicting science information from the information processing perspective—an eye movement analysis

AU - Yang, Fang-Ying

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - The main goal of this study was to investigate how readers’ visual attention distribution during reading of conflicting science information is related to their scientific reasoning behavior. A total of 25 university students voluntarily participated in the study. They were given conflicting science information about earthquake predictions to read while their eye movements during reading were recorded by the FaceLAB eye tracking system. After reading, the participants were interviewed to probe their reasoning performance. Our study showed that when university students were asked to read and reason about conflicting science information, those who paid more cognitive attention and efforts to the text areas related to backing theory, data, and warrants demonstrated better performances in coordinating theory and evidence, identifying evidence, and providing rebuttals, compared to students who paid less attention and made fewer cognitive efforts to these areas. The association between students’ background knowledge and performance of scientific reasoning was weak. Compared to those with irrelevant backgrounds, students with relevant background knowledge tended to read more of the facts when the science information involved a simple experimental study, while their attention was directed more to data and claims when the experimental study was complicated or unfamiliar.

AB - The main goal of this study was to investigate how readers’ visual attention distribution during reading of conflicting science information is related to their scientific reasoning behavior. A total of 25 university students voluntarily participated in the study. They were given conflicting science information about earthquake predictions to read while their eye movements during reading were recorded by the FaceLAB eye tracking system. After reading, the participants were interviewed to probe their reasoning performance. Our study showed that when university students were asked to read and reason about conflicting science information, those who paid more cognitive attention and efforts to the text areas related to backing theory, data, and warrants demonstrated better performances in coordinating theory and evidence, identifying evidence, and providing rebuttals, compared to students who paid less attention and made fewer cognitive efforts to these areas. The association between students’ background knowledge and performance of scientific reasoning was weak. Compared to those with irrelevant backgrounds, students with relevant background knowledge tended to read more of the facts when the science information involved a simple experimental study, while their attention was directed more to data and claims when the experimental study was complicated or unfamiliar.

KW - argumentation skills

KW - eye movements

KW - eye tracking

KW - science-text reading

KW - scientific reasoning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021793213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021793213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/tea.21408

DO - 10.1002/tea.21408

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 1347

EP - 1372

JO - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

JF - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

SN - 0022-4308

IS - 10

ER -