Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expertise as Sensorimotor Tuning: Perceptual Navigation Patterns Mark Representational Competence in Science

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. In the context of this paper, we use the term ‘perceptual’ in a limited sense to refer only to visual perception.

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualisation of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Learning through gesture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 595–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L. (1998). Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 585–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 280–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsanova, J. (2014). Reception of multimodality: Applying eye tracking methodology in multimodal research. In Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 285–296).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27, 34–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry – logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellman, P. J., & Garrigan, P. (2009). Perceptual learning and human expertise. Physics of Life Reviews, 6(2), 53–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & SOCIETY, 25(4), 441–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Körner, A., Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2015). Routes to embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, D., Allen, C., & Zednik, C. (2014). A perceptual account of symbolic reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 720–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 57–79). Leiden: Brill sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, J., & Garrigan, P. (2016). Persistent perceptual grouping effects in the evaluation of simple arithmetic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 44(5), 750–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salkind, N. (2006). Exploring research (6. ed., international ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 123–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., Scopelitis, S., Lira, M. E., & Desutter, D. (2016). Improving representational competence with concrete models. Science Education, 100(2), 344–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/1h005465I.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobii Technology. (2014). User’s manual Tobii X2-60 eye-tracker. Sweden: Tobii Pro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbos, G. (2015). APA dictionary of psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/14646-000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India

    Prajakt Pande & Sanjay Chandrasekharan

  2. Department of People & Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    Prajakt Pande

  3. Centre for Virtual Learning Technologies, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    Prajakt Pande

Authors
  1. Prajakt Pande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanjay Chandrasekharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prajakt Pande.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09981-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation