Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.778

An Analysis of Eye Movement in Observation According to University Students' Cognitive Style  

Lim, Sung-Man (Korea National University of Education)
Choi, Hyun-Dong (Korea National University of Education)
Yang, Il-Ho (Korea National University of Education)
Jeong, Mi-Yeon (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.33, no.4, 2013 , pp. 778-793 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze observation characteristics through eye movement according to cognitive styles. To do this, we developed observation tasks that show the differences between wholistic cognitive style group and analytic cognitive style group, measured eye movement of university students with different cognitive styles after being given an observation task. The difference between two cognitive style groups is confirmed by analysing gathered statistics and visualization data. The findings of this study are as follows: First, to compare fixation time and frequency, we compared the average value of total time used in the observation task by the wholistic cognitive style group and analytic cognitive style group. The numbers of Fixation (total) and number of Fixations (30s), is based on the fact that the wholistic cognitive style group has more numbers of fixation (Total) and number of fixations (30s) means the wholistic cognitive style group can observe more points or overall features than the analytic cognitive style group, in contrast, the analytic cognitive style group tend to focus on a particular detail, and observe less numbers of points. Second, to compare observation object and area by cognitive style, the outcome of analysing visualization data shows that wholistic cognitive style group observes the surrounding environment of spider and web on a wider area, on the other hand, the analytic cognitive style group observes by focusing on the spider itself. Through the result of this study, there are differences in observation time, frequency, object, area, and ratio from the two cognitive styles. It also shows the reason why each student has varied outcome, from the difference of information following their cognitive styles, and the result of this study helps to figure out and give direction as to what observation fulfillment is more suitable for each student.
Keywords
Observation; cognitive style; eye movement; eye-tracking;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 권석원, 권용주(2009). 생명현상 관찰에서 나타나는 인과적 의문 생성의 ERF 특성: MEG 연구. 과학교육연구지, 33(2), 336-345.
2 권용주, 정진수, 강민정, 김영신(2003). 과학적 가설지식의 생성 과정에 대한 바탕이론, 한국과학교육학회지.23(5), 458-469.
3 권용주, 정진수, 강민정, 박윤복(2005). 생명현상에 대한 초.중등 과학교사의 관찰에서 나타난 과학적 관찰의 유형. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(3), 431-439.
4 권용주, 정진수, 이준기, 이일선(2008). 과학지식의 생성과 평가. 메이드. 74-119.
5 김민경(2009). 초등학생의 인지양식에 따른 생물 과제의 관찰 특성 분석. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문.
6 김주필(2000). 한국산 거미목 목록. 한국토양동물학회, 5(2), 139-163
7 김주필, 임현옥(1998). 한국산 조망성 (造網性) 거미류의 그물형태의 연구. 한국환경생물학회, 16(2), 123-142.
8 김지호, 부수현, 김재휘(2007). 광고의 깊이지각 단서가 시각적 주의에 미치는 영향에 대한 아이트래커 활용 연구. 한국광고홍보학회지, 9(2), 277-310.
9 김태용(2008). 유명 여성모델이 등장하는 TV광고에 대한 시청자들의 시선이동. 광고학연구, 19(3), 103-115.
10 신동훈, 신정주, 권용주(2006). 초등학교 관찰 수업과정과 관찰유형 분석. 초등과학교육, 25(4), 339-351.
11 양일호, 이순주, 김은애, 이소리, 권석원(2010). 인지양식에 따른 관찰 특성 분석 : MEG 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(8), 1097-1109.
12 윤미소, 김한일(2003). 초등학생의 인지양식에 따른 검색전략비교. 한국컴퓨터교육학회 논문지, 6(3), 143-150.
13 이수범, 이희복, 신명희(2011). 아이트래킹을 이용한 가상광고 수용자 효과 연구. 광고학연구, 22(5), 99-125.
14 이태연(2008). 범주학습에서 범주화 방략에 미치는 인지양식의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 20(4), 339-355.
15 이태연(2009). 범주학습에서 범주화 방략에 미치는 인지양식의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 20, 339-355.
16 이태연(2011). 인지양식, 자극 응집성 및 지시가 범주학습에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 23(3), 411-429.
17 임성만, 손희정, 양일호(2011). 초등학생의 인지양식에 따른 자료해석 특성 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 31(1), 78-98.
18 임채성(1999). 초등학교 아동의 인지양식과 성별에 따른 생물 관찰 특성. 한국생물교육학회지, 27(2), 143-150.
19 임채성(2005). 뇌 기능에 기초한 과학 교수학습: 뇌기능과 학교 과학의 정의적.심체적.인지적 영역의 연계적 통합 모형. 초등과학교육, 24(1), 86-101.
20 임채성, 김남일, 김재영, 배진호, 장남기(1993). 고등학교 학생의 인지기능과 과학 학업성취도의 관계. 한국생물교육학회지, 21(20), 127-133.
21 임채성, 이선경, 장남기(1990). 중학생의 인지양식 성별과 과학성취도와의 관계. 서울대학교 과학교육연구소 과학교육연구논총, 15(1), 69-76.
22 최현동, 신동훈(2012). 과학 교과서의 표를 해석하는 초등교사들의 안구 운동 추적. 초등과학교육, 31(3), 358- 371.
23 Ballard, D. H., Hayoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4), 723-767.
24 David A. S., Eric N. W., & Len A. A. (2005). Eye-Tracking Students'Attention to PowerPoint photographs in a Science Education Setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5-6), 509-520   DOI
25 Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action:Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students'conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 37-60.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Henderson, J. M., Brockmole, J. R., Castelhano, M. S., & Mack, M. (2006). Visual saliency does not account for eye movement during visual search in real-world scenes. Eye Movement Research: Insights into mind and brain. Oxford: Elsevier, 537-562.
27 Erol, O., Turkan, K., Engin, K., & Kursat, C. (2009). An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning. Computer & Education, 53(2), 445-453.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Hauk, O., Patterson, K., Woollams, O., Cooper-Pye, E.,Pulvermuller F., & Rogers T. T. (2007). How the camel lost its hump: The impact of object typicality on event-related potential signals in object decision. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(8), 1338-1353.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Henderson, J. M., and Hollingsworth, A. (1998). Eye movements during scene viewing: An overview. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception, Elsevier, Oxford, 269-294.
30 Hodson, D. (1986). Rethinking the role and status of observation in science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(4), 381-396.   DOI
31 Hoese, W. J., & Nowicki, S. (2001). Using "The Organism" as a conceptual focus in an introductory biology course. The American Biology Teacher, 63(3), 176-183.
32 Hsiao-Ching, S., & Yi-Zen, C. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements. Computer & Education, 53, 1297-1307.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Jelka S. (2007). Increasing the interest of students in plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 19-23.   DOI
34 Jonassen, D. H. (1978). Cognitive styles/controls and media. Educational Technology, 16(6), 28-32.
35 Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441-480.   DOI
36 Myers, O. E., Saunders, C. D., & Garrett, E. (2003). What do children think animals need? Aesthetic and psychosocial Conceptions. Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 305-325.   DOI
37 Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 383-409.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Matti, H., & Jukka, H. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high- ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 95-123.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles:Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.   DOI
40 Norris, S. P. (1984). Defining observational competence. Science Education, 68(2), 129-142.   DOI
41 Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3&4), 193-215.   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Riding, R. J., & Rayner, D. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.
44 Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, Richard. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional Science, 27, 355-371.
45 Simons, J. S., Koutstaal, W., Prince, S., Wagner, A. D., & Schacter, D. L. (2003). Neural mechanisms of visual object priming: Evidence for perceptual and semantic distinctions in fusiform cortex. NeuroImage, 19, 613-626.   DOI   ScienceOn
46 Witkin, H., Moore, C. A., Goodenought, D., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field-independent style and their educational implication. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64.   DOI   ScienceOn
47 Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2006). Students'interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 124-129.   DOI