Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study

Abstract

Successful text reading is crucial to most learning required in school and academic contexts. To extend current research on learning from science texts, this exploratory study investigates the interplay of readers’ prior knowledge and text structure through eye-tracking methodology. We examined whether reading a refutational or non-refutational text would induce different cognitive processing, as revealed by eye-movement analyses that provide objective measures of visual attention allocation during reading. Unlike a standard expository text, a refutational text acknowledges a reader’s alternative conceptions about a topic, refutes them, and then introduces scientific conceptions as viable alternatives. Forty university students read one or the other type of text about the phenomenon of the tides. All had alternative conceptions about the topic. Findings showed that at post-test (off-line measure) refutational text readers learned more than non-refutational text readers. Outcomes regarding indices of visual behavior (on-line measures) during reading revealed that refutational text readers fixated the text segments presenting scientific concepts for a longer time overall than non-refutational text readers, in particular during the second-pass reading. Refutational text readers also fixated the refutational segments for a shorter time than non-refutational text readers for the control segments. Furthermore, all indices of visual attention predicted learning only for the refutational text readers, whose comprehension was negatively related to the length of reading, but positively related to its quality. The more the students’ reading of the refutational text was strategic, the better they learned from it. Implications about eye-tracking methodology and the refutational effect are drawn from the study

Conceptual change with refutational maps

“…After the first-round reading, refutational text readers reallocated their visual attention to the scientific theories because they may have realized the necessity to elaborate on these crucial parts to address the cognitive conflict. Though the pattern of cognitive processing was drawn from a small number of participants, the study, to some extent, sheds light on the effect of refutational texts on supporting and driving readers' visual attention during reading (Ariasi & Mason, 2010). …”

“…In science education, text has been regarded as an essential medium for acquiring disciplinary knowledge (Ariasi & Mason, 2010;Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003). Therefore, features of text are theorized to facilitate conceptual change.…”

“…In addition, Ariasi and Mason (2010) developed a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of cognitive processing underlying reading refutational and non-refutational texts by observing readers' ocular behaviors. Ariasi and Mason (2010) randomly divided 40 Italian students from a public university into two groups, an expository text study group or a refutational text study group, and investigated students' allocation of visual attention during text reading by tracking their eye movements.…”

“…Ariasi and Mason (2010) randomly divided 40 Italian students from a public university into two groups, an expository text study group or a refutational text study group, and investigated students' allocation of visual attention during text reading by tracking their eye movements. In addition to the finding in line with most previous studies that students reading refutational text performed better than those reading expository text, it was also found that a shorter time was taken to fixate on the refutational segments than the corresponding manipulated segments in expository text.…”

“…Overall, either during the initial processing of the text or during the second-pass look-back, compared with those reading expository text, students learning refutational text fixated more time on the segments discussing scientific concepts which were identical in both texts. Regarding the findings, Ariasi and Mason (2010) presumed that reading refutational segments could help readers speed up cognitive processing by externally activating their relevant prior knowledge, though incorrect, and the faster link between text elements and mental structures avoids a breakdown during the process of comprehension (Fontanini, 2004). When they then proceed to the segments presenting scientific concepts, the co-activation of inaccurate and accurate ideas occurs, which raises a conceptual inconsistency and slows down cognitive processing for argumentative thinking.…”