Examining the reasoning of conflicting science information from the information processing perspective—an eye movement analysis
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, ISSN: 1098-2736, Vol: 54, Issue: 10, Page: 1347-1372
2017
- 27Citations
- 62Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
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. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 10: 1347–1372, 2017.
Bibliographic Details
Wiley
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know