Abstract
Representational competence in science is the ability to generate external representations (e.g. equations, graphs) of real-world phenomena, transform between these representations, and use them in an integrated fashion. Difficulties in achieving representational competence are often considered central to difficulties in learning science. Representational competence is indicative of domain expertise and is characterised by distinct problem-solving strategies. Eye-tracking studies have consistently demonstrated that experts employ unique perceptual attention (e.g. gaze-fixation) patterns while solving problems that involve different external representations. Here, we present a different strand of evidence, indicating that perceptual navigation patterns (eye movements) mark representational competence in science, in more specific ways than attention. Gaze behaviours of chemistry professors (experts) and undergraduate students (novices) were tracked as they individually performed a multi-representational-categorisation task and a chemical equation-balancing task. The following three-step analysis was performed on these data: (i) First, we independently calibrated the levels of representational competence of our participants through their performance in the categorisation task. (ii) Then, we compared these competence levels with the participants’ perceptual patterns (gaze behaviour) exhibited during the categorisation task. (iii) Finally, we analysed whether the identified perceptual patterns were specific to representational competence, or more general, through the results of the equation-balancing task. Our analysis of perceptual navigation (eye movements) provided further support to previous findings showing gaze-behaviour differences between experts and novices. Going further, our analysis indicated that experts deploy distinct eye-movement patterns, but specifically during representational competence-related problems. This suggests that representational competence is an embodied skill that fundamentally changes the tuning of the perceptual system, as argued by recent ‘field’ theories of cognition.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For better readability, we use the term ‘representation’ instead of ‘external representation’ hereafter. Our usage of this term is restricted to mean external representation (emphasising its physically external relationship to the neural mind), unless stated otherwise.
In the context of this paper, we use the term ‘perceptual’ in a limited sense to refer only to visual perception.
For the purpose of our analysis, we present certain frequencies per 10 s relative to the (viewing duration), instead of per second, as the latter values appeared to be too small in their magnitude to be discussed meaningfully.
References
Aurigemma, J., Chandrasekharan, S., Nersessian, N., & Newstetter, W. (2013). Turning experiments into objects: the cognitive processes involved in the design of a lab-on-a-chip device. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20003.
Abrahamson, D. (2019). A new world: educational research on the sensorimotor roots of mathematical reasoning. In A. Shvarts (Ed.), Proceedings of the PME and Yandex Russian conference: Technology and Psychology for Mathematics Education (pp. 48–68). Moscow: HSE Publishing House.
Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: the ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370.
Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
Basu, S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (2015). A scaffolding framework to support learning of emergent phenomena using multi-agent-based simulation environments. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 293–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9424-z.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualisation of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.
Bottini, R., & Doeller, C. (2020). Knowledge across reference frames: cognitive maps and image spaces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 606–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.008.
Braithwaite, D. W., Goldstone, R. L., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Landy, D. H. (2016). Non-formal mechanisms in mathematical cognitive development: the case of arithmetic. Cognition, 149, 40–55.
Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2012). On the dynamics of action representations evoked by names of manipulable objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141(3), 502–517.
Chandrasekharan, S. (2009) Building to Discover: A Common Coding Model. Cognitive Science 33(6):1059-1086
Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). Becoming knowledge: cognitive and neural mechanisms that support scientific intuition. In L. Osbeck & B. Held (Eds.), Rational intuition: philosophical roots, scientific investigations (pp. 307–337). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, S. C., She, H. C., Chuang, M. H., Wu, J. Y., Tsai, J. L., & Jung, T. P. (2014). Eye movements predict students’ computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities. Computers & Education, 74, 61–72.
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.
Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92(5), 848–867.
Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 523–552.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Glenberg, A. M., Witt, J. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2013). From the revolution to embodiment: 25 years of cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613498098.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Learning through gesture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 595–607.
Goldstone, R. L. (1998). Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 585–612.
Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 280–285.
Holsanova, J. (2014). Reception of multimodality: Applying eye tracking methodology in multimodal research. In Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 285–296).
Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27, 34–49.
Irwin, D. E. (2004). Fixation location and fixation duration as indices of cognitive processing. The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World, 217, 105–133.
Jarodzka, H., Van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, K. (2013). Learning to see: guiding students’ attention via a model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learning and Instruction, 25, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.004.
Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64(227), 377–379.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry – logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9–15.
Kang, S., Tversky, B., & Black, J. B. (2015). Coordinating gesture, word, and diagram: explanations for experts and novices. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 15(1), 1–26.
Kellman, P. J., & Garrigan, P. (2009). Perceptual learning and human expertise. Physics of Life Reviews, 6(2), 53–84.
Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2010). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: enhancing students’ pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 285–305.
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & SOCIETY, 25(4), 441–454.
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90007-8.
Klein, P., Viiri, J., Mozaffari, S., Dengel, A., & Kuhn, J. (2018). Instruction-based clinical eye-tracking study on the visual interpretation of divergence: How do students look at vector field plots? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010116 (1-17).
Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010111.
Kostons, D., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2009). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: a cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Learninstruc.2011.08.004.
Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Pande, P., Agarwal, H., Ranka, A., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). How does representational competence develop? Explorations using a fully controllable interface and eye-tracking. In C.-C. Liu, Y. T. Wu, T. Supnithi, T. Kojiri, H. Ogata, S. C. Kong, & A. Kashihara (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computers in education (pp. 738–743). Nara: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Kozma, R. B. (2020). Use of multiple representations by experts and novices. In P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, & P. Kendeou (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives. Abington: Routledge.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.
Körner, A., Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2015). Routes to embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00940.
Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. The psychology of learning science, 117-147.
Kutchukian, P. S., Vasilyeva, N. Y., Xu, J., Lindvall, M. K., Dillon, M. P., Glick, M., Coley, J. D., & Brooijmans, N. (2012). Inside the mind of a medicinal chemist: the role of human bias in compound prioritization during drug discovery. PLoS One, 7(11), e48476.
Landy, D., Allen, C., & Zednik, C. (2014). A perceptual account of symbolic reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 275.
Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 720–733.
Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Crossing levels and representations: the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 224–242.
Litchfield, D., & Ball, L. J. (2011). Using another’s gaze as an explicit aid to insight problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 649–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.558628.
Madsen, A. M., Larson, A. M., Loschky, L. C., & Rebello, N. S. (2012). Differences in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010122 (1-13).
Majumdar, R., Kothiyal, A., Ranka, A., Pande, P., Murthy, S., Agarwal, H., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). The enactive equation: exploring how multiple external representations are integrated, using a fully controllable interface and eye-tracking. In 2014 IEEE sixth international conference on Technology for Education (pp. 233–240). https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2014.31.
Markauskaite, L., Kelly, N., & Jacobson, M. J. (2020). Model-based knowing: how do students ground their understanding about climate systems in agent-based computer models? Research in Science Education, 50(1), 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9680-9.
Matuk, C., & Uttal, D. H. (2020). The effects of invention and recontextualization on representing and reasoning with trees of life. Research in Science Education, 50, 1991–2033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9761-4.
Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2020). Body motion, early algebra, and the colours of abstraction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104(2), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09955-2.
Nersessian, N. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 57–79). Leiden: Brill sense.
NRC/National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2012). Technological literacy learning with cumulative and stepwise integration of equations into electrical circuit diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 480–487.
Pande, P. P. (2018). Rethinking representational competence: cognitive mechanisms, empirical studies, and the design of a new media intervention [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai.
Pande, P. (2020). Learning and Expertise with Scientific External Representations: An Embodied and Extended Cognition Model, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09686-y
Pande, P., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). Eye-tracking in STEM education research: Limitations, experiences and possible extensions, In Kinshuk & Murthy, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Technology for Education, 116-119. Kerala: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2014.29
Pande, P., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2017). Representational competence: towards a distributed and embodied cognition account, Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 1-43. UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2017.1248627
Pande, P., Shah, P. & Chandrasekharan, S. (2015). How do experts and novices navigate chemistry representations – an eye tracking investigation, In S. Chandrasekharan, S. Murthy, G. Banarjee, & A. Muralidhar (Eds.), Proceedings of EPISTEME-6, 102-109, HBCSE-TIFR, Mumbai, India.
Pande, P., & Sevian, H. (2016). Switching between probabilistic and deterministic mental models of molecular dynamics: a case of conceptual fluency. In C. Looi, J. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (2) (pp. 898–901). Singapore: NIE Accessed at: https://www.isls.org/icls/2016/docs/ICLS2016_Volume_2.pdf.
Rahaman, J., Agrawal, H., Srivastava, N., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2017). Recombinant enaction: manipulatives generate new procedures in the imagination, by extending and recombining action spaces. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 370–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12518.
Rau, M. A. (2015). Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students make connections among multiple graphical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 654–669.
Rivera, J., & Garrigan, P. (2016). Persistent perceptual grouping effects in the evaluation of simple arithmetic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 44(5), 750–761.
Salkind, N. (2006). Exploring research (6. ed., international ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Conceptual versus algorithmic problem-solving: focusing on problems dealing with conservation of matter in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 587–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9181-6.
Schnepp, M., & Nemirovsky, R. (2001). Constructing a foundation for the fundamental theorem of calculus. The roles of representation in school mathematics., 90–102.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary: towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.
Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 123–145.
Stieff, M., Scopelitis, S., Lira, M. E., & Desutter, D. (2016). Improving representational competence with concrete models. Science Education, 100(2), 344–363.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/1h005465I.
Tobii Technology. (2014). User’s manual Tobii X2-60 eye-tracker. Sweden: Tobii Pro.
Vandenbos, G. (2015). APA dictionary of psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/14646-000.
Virk, S. S., & Clark, D. B. (2019). Signaling in disciplinarily-integrated games: challenges in integrating proven cognitive scaffolds within game mechanics to promote representational competence. In Contemporary technologies in education (pp. 67–95). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449–459.
Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9160-y.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dibyanshee Mishra and Prateek Shah for their initial assistance in the data analysis process, and Hannah Sevian and all the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the initial and revised drafts of this manuscript.
Funding
Part of this work was possible due to a grant awarded by the Cognitive Science Research Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. We also acknowledge the support of the Govt. of India, Department of Atomic Energy, under Project No. 12-R&D-TFR-6.04-0600.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 854 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pande, P., Chandrasekharan, S. Expertise as Sensorimotor Tuning: Perceptual Navigation Patterns Mark Representational Competence in Science. Res Sci Educ 52, 725–747 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09981-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09981-3