The learning benefits of using eye trackers to enhance the geospatial abilities of elementary school students

The learning benefits of using eye trackers to enhance thegeospatial abilities of elementary school students

Hsiao-shen Wang, Yi-Ting Chen and Chih-Hung Lin

Dr Hsiao-shen Wang is an associate professor in the Department of Digital Content & Technology, National TaichungUniversity of Education, Taichung, Taiwan. His primary research is using innovative technology to integrate intolearning. Mr Yi-Ting Chen is a full time project assistant in the cancer center, Dalin Tzu Chi General Hospital, Chiayi,Taiwan. His major job is statistical analysis and data mining of the back-end database to improve the quality of thecancer treatment. Mr Chih-Hung Lin is a master student in the Department of Digital Content & Technology,National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan. Address for correspondence: Dr Hsiao-shen Wang,Department of Digital Content & Technology, National Taichung University of Education, 140 Min-Shen Road,Taichung 40306, Taiwan. Email: [email protected]

AbstractIn this study, we examined the spatial abilities of students using eye-movement trackingdevices to identify and analyze their characteristics. For this research, 12 students aged11–12 years participated as novices and 4 mathematics students participated as experts.A comparison of the visual-spatial abilities of each group showed key factors of superiorspatial ability, and a spatial ability instructional strategy was developed. After training,the same spatial ability test was conducted again, and eye-tracking records were usedto compare the participants’ line-of-sight and answer rate results with those of theprevious test. Specific references and recommendations are provided for spatial abilitytraining education and assessment.

IntroductionGeospatial analysis is indispensable in the study of mathematics and an essential skill for under-standing geometric concepts (Erbas & Yenmez, 2011; Freudenthal, 1972; Kurtulus & Uygan,2010; van Nes & van Eerde, 2010). Furthermore, it enhances students’ abilities to consider solidgeometric spaces and facilitates higher-order mathematical innovations and cognition (Clements& Battista, 1992; Idris, 2005; Wiener, Hölscher, Buechner & Konieczny, 2009). However, spatialabilities are not easily developed and can be difficult to explain. Measurements of spatial abilityare also difficult to perform because of limited reliable and up-to-date spatial ability assessmenttools (Jeng & Chen, 2007). Although students’ thinking methods or thought processes can beunderstood through interviews and by encouraging them to think aloud, the results often do notreflect their subconscious cognitive process because of sampling limitations (Chen, Lai & Chiu,2010).

Tracking eye-movement provides clear, real-time evidence of participants’ internal reflectionsand motivations that are impossible to disguise (Salvucci & Anderson, 1998; Shimojo, Simion,Shimojo & Scheier, 2003). Eye-movement tracking also provides substantial solid geometryfigures (Yu & Smith, 2011). Therefore, for this study, we tracked the eye movements of studentsaged 11–12 in Taiwan to measure and record their spatial perceptions, mental rotations andspatial ability visualization. We also conducted observations and training using spatial abilitytests and educational activities including “geospatial recognition,” “solid- and planar-expandedfigures,” and “spatial rotation and reasoning.” For each activity, the difference between the

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014 340–355doi:10.1111/bjet.12011

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

Practitioner NotesWhat is already known about this topic

• Geospatial ability is an indispensable skill in the study of mathematics and is an abilityone must possess prior to understanding geometric concepts. Scholars also show thatspatial ability can be improved through appropriate teaching and training. However,spatial abilities are not easily explained and are difficult to describe in detail.

• By recording the eye’s behavior mode and path as it collects information, a partici-pant’s cognitive process through visualization can be observed directly; usingeye-movement instruments to track participants’ visualization processes is a feasiblemethod to analyze a user’s cognitive.

• The direct measurement and recording in eye tracking can replace typical paperquestionnaires to obtain learners’ learning processes in a multimedia learningenvironment.

What this paper adds

• This study used eye tracking on sixth grade students in Taiwan to measure and recordparticipants’ spatial perception, mental rotation and spatial visualization of spatialability activity; the difference between the students’ and the experts’ spatial abilitiesand the difference in the students’ spatial abilities after strategic spatial ability trainingwere compared.

• This study conducted observation and training studies on spatial ability testsand education activities using “geospatial recognition,” “solid- and planar-expandedfigures,” and “spatial rotation and reasoning.”

Implications for practice and/or policy

• The majority of novices were unable to clearly grasp the ability to compare moved orrotated spatial models with the original figure, their line-of-sight tracking appearedirregular and chaotic, or they ineffectively searched among topics and were unable toimmediately produce spatial memory and relevant concepts in their mind and wereunable to structurally consider problem-solving clues.

• Experts were able to quickly rotate and move the object of stimulus before their eyes,the location of the reference point was the fulcrum, and after the image in the topicwas rotated, the corresponding reference points in the figure choices were found andcompared to select the correct answer.

• This study used the fixation data and determined that participants with better spatialability had a strategy prior to reading the topic. They would first simulate the imagefrom the prompt in their mind and then find the correct answer by selecting the imagethat corresponded to the image in their head.

• After spatial training, novices were all able to solve “solid- and planar-expandingfigure” questions, increasing their answer rate. Therefore, this research design caneffectively increase students’ “spatial visualization” ability.

• The results on the spatial ability assessment of sixth grade students suggest furtherexpansion of the study parameters to compare spatial ability eye-tracking perform-ance for different age levels and different genders.

Learning benefits of using eye trackers in geospatial abilities 341


students’ and the experts’ spatial abilities and the difference in the students’ spatial abilities afterstrategic spatial ability training were compared. The results were used to assess the geospatialability of students aged 11–12 years and to propose specific educational recommendations tofacilitate effective learning.

Related workDifficulties evaluating spatial abilitySpatial reasoning requires the brain to conduct assessment and thinking processes, and is thefoundation for learning advanced abstract geometric concepts (Pitta-Pantazi & Christou, 2010;Yakimanskaya, 1991). Numerous studies have indicated that spatial abilities have a positive effecton people’s understanding of music, medicine, graphic design, sense of direction, positioning andother fields of knowledge (Douglas & Bilkey, 2007; Yildiz, 2009). Researchers have also found thatspatial abilities can be improved through appropriate teaching and training (Alias, Gray & Black,2002; Idris, 2005; Martín-Gutiérrez et al, 2010; Wanzel, Hamstra, Anastakis, Matsumoto &Cusimano, 2002). However, no uniform spatial ability assessment exists. Measurement methodsvary between scholars, and a precise objective assessment method has not been developed. Linnand Petersen (1985) divided spatial abilities into the following three aspects: spatial perception,mental rotation and spatial visualization. Lohman (1988) categorized spatial abilities into threeprimary types: spatial visualization, spatial relationships and spatial positioning. Previous studieshave used other terminology to describe, define and refer to various spatial abilities (Gorgorió,1998).

Schofield and Kirby (1994) considered spatial abilities to be a type of understanding of spatialrelationships, that is, three-dimensional (3D) mental rotations, which includes the ability toconvert 3D images into two-dimensional (2D) images. Previous studies have indicated that spatialability is difficult to precisely define or explain because different types of spatial abilities are usedbased on their objectives. Therefore, because developing comprehensive spatial ability theory anda quantitative assessment method is difficult, standardized spatial ability tests are sparse. Jeng andChen (2007) stated that spatial ability test questions are difficult to formulate because a consen-sus has not been reached on spatial ability theories and dimensions, resulting in questions thatare difficult to understand.

Eye-tracking implicationsThe emergence of eye-tracking technology has provided extant studies with objective data ofpeople’s visualization processes (Boucheix & Lowe, 2010; De Koning, Tabbers, Rikers & Paas,2010). For other studies, an operational definition of spatial ability is typically employed as aspecific indicator. Spatial ability training can effectively improve people’s spatial reasoning abilities,which are closely linked to spatial visualization. Spatial visualization ability is the ability tomentally manipulate 2D and 3D figures (Alonso, 1998). The eyes are typically the first sensoryorgan to receive information from the outside world. With visualization tracking technology, wecan use physiological reactions as indicators to convert people’s mental process into statistical datathat can be quantifiably analyzed (Tsai, Hou, Lai, Liu & Yang, 2012). However, the necessaryperceived messages can only be captured when a person’s gaze remains fixed on a target (Hristova& Grinberg, 2005; van Gog, Jarodzka, Scheiter, Gerjets & Paas, 2009). Therefore, using eye-movement tracking instruments to understand participants’ visualization processes is a feasiblemethod for analyzing the cognitive difficulties of spatial visualization. Eye-tracking tools canalso show whether a student is focused on studying, a crucial consideration when designingstudy materials (Mayer, 2010; Schwonke, Berthold & Renkl, 2009). The direct measurement andrecording of eye movements can replace the use of paper questionnaires in assessing the learningprocesses of learners in multimedia-learning environments (Liu, Lai & Chuang, 2011; van Gog &Scheiter, 2010).

342 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014


Through a meta-analysis of eye-tracking research (Gegenfurtner, Lehtinen & Säljö, 2011), wefound that comprehension of visualization is the primary difference between experts and novices.This difference may result from experts experiencing qualitative changes in their long-termmemory structures, which are greater than novice spatial visualization abilities. This informationmay provide a reference for developing instructional strategies that can enhance spatial abilitiesin novices.

In this study, we combined the operational definitions of Linn and Petersen (1985) and Lohman(1988) and divided spatial abilities into spatial perception “where people can identify the rela-tionship between spaces,” spatial visualization “where people can move and fold a coherent andcomplex image” and mental rotation “where people can imagine the position of an image afterrotation.” These spatial abilities were specifically assessed using geospatial recognition, solid- andplanar-expanded figures, and spatial rotation and reasoning. Combined with the precise trackingof visualization using an eye-movement tracking device, we identified and analyzed the charac-teristics of spatial visualization.

MethodologyWe observed and recorded the spatial visualization performance of students aged 11–12 yearsusing eye-movement tracking devices. We then compared their results with the problem-solvingstrategies and line-of-sight tracking analysis of college-level mathematics students. Instructionalstrategies for training were designed based on the results of tracking the eye-movement path andcomparing the results with a later retest. First, the eye-tracking technology was used to recordstudents’ geospatial reasoning ability. The results of the novices (students aged 11–12 years) andthe experts (college students) for the same spatial ability test were compared using various visu-alization points, fixation times and fixation location distributions. The key factors contributing tothe novices’ weaker spatial abilities were identified and used as the basis for curriculum designand planning, and the key factors, such as the experts’ visualization paths, were used to develop“spatial reasoning improvement” training.

After training, the novices’ spatial abilities were retested and their eye movements were recorded.The visualization points, fixation times and fixation location distributions from the two tests werecompared to understand whether spatial ability training provided improvements and to explorethe feasibility of implementing this training. Finally, the eye-tracking results, observations,experimental records and course forum content obtained from this study were compiled andanalyzed using quantitative and qualitative research methods to present the final research resultsand eye-movement data.

ParticipantsThe participants in this study were 12 students (eight boys and four girls, mean age = 11.9,standard deviation = 0.35) randomly distributed across Taichung’s elementary schools and4 students from the Department of Mathematics at National Taichung University School ofEducation, who participated in this study as spatial ability experts for comparison. The first testwas conducted in January 2011, and after 3 months of spatial ability training, a second test wasconducted in April 2011.

Questionnaire designWhen developing the test questions used in this study, we primarily referenced the spatial orien-tation and visualization questions designed by Wu (2004) and the spatial ability test for solidexpanding graph learning employed by Wei and Chen (2006). We also consulted the mathcurriculum design for elementary schools. The test questions were revised following a reviewby 45 students from the Department of Mathematics who had teaching experience. In addition,the experts highlighted which questions and topics they considered inappropriate. Following a



discussion with an expert on eye-movement experiments, we elected to use an eye-movementexperiment and converted the test questions into visually stimulating material for this study.The test content was divided into the following three categories: geospatial recognition, solid- andplanar-expanded figures, and spatial rotation and reasoning, comprising 15 questions. The dis-tribution of questions between these question types is shown in Table 1. Before formally conduct-ing the test, a pretest was administered to two classes of students aged 11–12 years. We obtained36 effective samples. The Cronbach’s a for the questions was 0.72, which exceed the 0.7 valuerecommended by Nunnally (1978).

A brief introduction to the eye-movement experimentThe eye-movement device used in this study was the EyeLink 2000 system developed by aCanadian firm, SR Research. This device collected data on the participants’ spatial visualizationabilities: the test was conducted twice for the novices and once for the experts. Because theparticipants could not use a pen and paper to write their answers during the eye-movementanalysis process, their responses were recorded during the entire process. The test conditions areshown in Figure 1.

For this study, we used an eye-movement tracking system to monitor learners’ gazes and sac-cades. Gaze is the most commonly used indicator of eye movement. Longer gazes indicated thatthe participants required more time to process the information, meaning that the informationwas more difficult or of greater interest and attracted more attention. This duration of gaze iscalled “fixation time.” The gaze fixation time of each participant was shown using heatmaps,which can track the main and second fixation areas of individual eye-movement situations.Saccade is a fast movement of the eye from one area to another. Relative to the gaze, during asaccade, no messages are processed. The distance between two gaze positions is known asthe saccade length. Two saccade moving directions exist, forward-moving (forward saccades) andreverse-moving (regressive saccades). Reverse saccades are also known as regressions becausethe gaze is returned to a previous point. People who are confused are prone to exhibiting this typeof gaze behavior. Therefore, it is also often used as an effective indicator of learning difficulties.Thus, the participants’ eye fixations, saccades and heatmaps were the primary eye-movementtracking dimensions measured in this study.

We compared the results of the expert participants and those of the novice participants from bothexperiments. Qualitative analysis of eye-fixation location distribution area, quantitative data ofaverage fixation time and the fixation points in key areas are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The beforeand after coordinates of participants’ rapid saccade behavior with indicators, such as saccadeprocess number, speed, distance moved and average range, were tracked as the participantsviewed each primary fixation point in response to the spatial ability questions. By using thismethod, the strategies adopted by the participants could be understood. These are shown inFigure 4.

Before answering each question, the topic descriptions were recited aloud. In addition, adisplay of the topic on screen was removed to prevent eye movement from the participantswho were reading the description, which would have affected and hindered our ability to

Table 1: Distribution of question types in the spatial ability picture test

Question type Number Quantity

Geospatial recognition 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 5Solid- and planar-expanding graph 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 5Spatial rotation and reasoning 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 5



collect spatial visualization data. To avoid negatively affecting the experimental results, wefirst explained that if the participants did not understand or could not answer a question, theymust directly answer “I do not know,” which standardized the experimental process for allparticipants.

Figure 1: Participants in the eye-movement experiment

Figure 2: Eye-movement fixation-point distribution



ResultsThe descriptive statistics for both the novice and expert answers in the first stage of the test areshown in Table 2. The average score of the novices was 8.16 and that for the experts was 14.25.As we anticipated, the average performance of the novices was lower than that of the experts.

We also determined that the novices’ conceptual understanding of solid- and planar-expandedfigures, and spatial rotation and reasoning was weaker than their understanding of geometricfigure recognition. No significant difference between the experts’ and novices’ performances forgeometric figure recognition was observed. Thus, we inferred that the novices had no difficultywith this type of question. Therefore, solid- and planar-expanded figures, and spatial rotation andreasoning were the primarily focus of subsequent education.

Figure 3: Fixation-time distribution zones

Figure 4: Eye-movement line-of-sight tracking

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for novice and expert spatial ability test scores

GroupNumber of

participantsLowestscore

Highestscore

Averagescore

Standarddeviation

Novice 12 5 11 8.16 1.99Expert 4 13 15 14.25 0.96



The eye-tracking data, the line-of-sight path and the fixation-time distribution for NoviceA1’s incorrect answer to a solid- and planar-expanding graph question (Figure 5) showed thatthe student’s fixation points and average distribution were focused on the topic and choices ofthe question, and his or her saccade path oscillated between these two factors. In addition, thestudent only selected answers that used a simple translation, and the correctly expanded figureafter the folded test paper was opened was not considered.

Expert B1’s fixation path and time distribution for the same question are shown in Figure 6.After spending the majority of his or her fixation-time gazing at the top of the prompt, ExpertB1 searched between the choices, and his or her gaze returned to the prompt less than 10 timesbefore selecting the correct answer. The other options presented were barely considered.

The eye-movement path and fixation-time distribution diagrams for an incorrectly answered“spatial rotation and reasoning” question by Novice A2 are shown in Figure 7.

As the eye-tracking data show, when responding to this spatial rotation and reasoning question,the novice’s visualization path oscillated, while he or she continuously looked for clues ineach response, before spending the majority of time focused on the only flat figure. Expert B2’seye-tracking and fixation-time distribution diagrams for the same question (Figure 8) clearlyshow that the expert’s gaze was primarily focused on the figures, occasionally traveling betweenthe figures to compare them and locate the correct answer.

Examining the line-of-sight tracking for the incorrect answers by the novices showed that thestudents were unable to visually manipulate, rotate, reverse or flip objects in their mind. There-fore, the students were unable to identify the relevant problem-solving clues and subsequentlyselected incorrect answers for the solid- and planar-expanding figure questions. The experts

Figure 5: Line-of-sight path and fixation-time distribution diagrams for Novice A1’s incorrect answer to solid-and planar-expanded figures (answered C)



initially concentrated their gaze on the subject and were able to select the correct answer after ashort fixation time without considering other options excessively. For spatial rotation and reason-ing questions, fixation was focused on the figure choices, and the same reference point waslocated within each figure to compare and ultimately determine the correct answer. Therefore,the two key factors were the ability to fold and move a series of complicated images in their mindand the ability to rapidly rotate these images by comparing the position, proximity and distanceof reference points. Spatial ability training was developed based on these two factors to providestrategic instruction for novices.

The effect of spatial ability learning programAfter the novices’ ability to construct images in their mind was developed using spatial abilitytraining, a second spatial ability test was conducted. The results of the first and second tests areas follows: for the first test, the lowest score was 5, the highest score was 11, the average score was8.16 and the standard deviation was 1.99. For the second test, the lowest score was 6, the highestscore was 15, the average score was 10.75 and the standard deviation was 2.86. The productmoment correlation between the two tests was 0.725, and the significant test probability wasp = .008, less than the .05 required to achieve a level of significance. This shows that the twospatial ability tests were significantly correlated, and the participants’ scores for the second testwere higher than for the first test. The fixation-time distribution and eye-movement trackingfor Novice A3’s correct answer to the solid- and planar-expanding figure question are shown inFigure 9.

Figure 10 shows that fixation primarily focused on the prompt and the correct answer. Aftergazing at the prompt, the student’s gaze moved between each choice to determine the answer.

Figure 6: Line-of-sight path and fixation-time distribution diagrams for Expert B1’s correct answer to solid- andplanar-expanded figures



This procedure shows that after using the expert strategy to dissect the prompt, the novices wereable to fold and move a series of objects in their minds. The line-of-sight tracking for Novice A4’scorrect answer to a different solid- and planar-expanding figure question is shown in Figure 10.

The eye tracking and fixation-time distribution for Novice A5’s correct answer to the spatialrotation and reasoning question are shown in Figure 11. The area of fixation primarily falls onthe relevant reference points for each choice, and the saccade line moved mainly among the threechoices that were of similar shapes. This shows that the student effectively grasped the keyfixation-point selection strategies.

Although the eye movements for Novice A6’s incorrect answer to the spatial rotation and rea-soning question (Figure 12) resemble the eye movements of novices who correctly answered thequestion, the student was unable to effectively use the reference points to determine the correctlyrotated figure. Even after using the instructional strategies that had been taught, this student wasstill unable to recognize the original figure after its spatial position had been changed or rotated.

In the eye-tracking record, novices who showed effective improvement first fixated on the topicbefore locating the answer from among the various choices. The students were clearly using theexpert strategy of dissecting the prompt from their training; therefore, they were able to simulatethe rotation or flipping of the figure in their minds. Although the eye-tracking and fixationpositions of novices who were unable to correctly solve the question resembled those of theparticipants who correctly answered the question, they were unable to effectively use the refer-ence points to identify the correctly flipped figure. Even after using the instructional strategy, thestudents were still unable to change or rotate the figure’s spatial position.

Figure 7: Line-of-sight path and fixation-time distribution diagrams for Novice A2’s incorrect answer to spatialrotation and reasoning (answered D)



DiscussionFor this study, we used eye-movement tracking to observe elementary school students’geospatial visualization abilities. In the first phase, novice and expert eye-tracking results werecompared to identify the key factors that led to expertly selecting the correct answers. Thesefactors were then further employed to develop instructional strategies for novices. The noviceparticipants were then trained to create images in their mind using the visualization strategydeveloped by the researchers. The impact of this training on the participants’ test answers wasthen assessed.

After the 12 novices were tested for spatial ability in the first phase, we learned that their initialperformance using geospatial recognition was superior to their performance using solid- andplanar-expanding figures, and spatial rotation and reasoning, which indicated that the majorityof the novices were unable to compare spatial models that were moved or rotated with the originalfigure. The students did not fully understand the meaning of symmetry; therefore, they wereeasily confused when dismantling or converting an image onto a 2D plane. In addition, becausethe novices had poor image-changing abilities, they were unable to rapidly convert imagesbetween 2D and 3D, and were prone to becoming lost, providing confusing and unclear answers(Wu, 2004). Their line-of-sight tracking appeared irregular and chaotic, or they ineffectivelysearched among the topics, and were unable to recreate the spatial memory and relevantconcepts in their mind. In addition, they were unable to structurally consider problem-solvingclues. This situation was attributed to the limited working-memory capacity of novice learners.Specifically, novice learners may have shown lower performance ratings because their attempts

Figure 8: Line-of-sight path and fixation-time distribution diagrams for Expert B2’s correct answer to spatialrotation and reasoning



at 3D-to-2D conversion may have cognitively overloaded their working memory (Gegenfurtner,Lehtinen & Säljö, 2011).

Conversely, experts were able to quickly rotate and move the object of the stimulus before theireyes using reference points to identify relative positions and producing mental rotation behaviorwith proximity focus and distance adjustment (Linn & Petersen, 1985; Lohman, 1988). As thefixation-point position graph clearly shows, the location of the reference point was the fulcrum,and after the image was rotated, the corresponding reference points in the figure choices werelocated and compared to select the correct answer. In addition, we also used the fixation data to

Figure 9: Correct answer to solid- and planar-expanding figures



determine that participants with better spatial abilities had adopted the correct strategy beforereading the topic. They first simulated the image from the prompt in their mind and then locatedthe correct answer by selecting the image that corresponded to the image in their head. It was alsoclear during the experiment that experts would begin by spending more time by first fixating onthe topic, creating the converted or disassembled figure in their mind, before locating the imagethat corresponded to the completed image in their mind. Saccade tracking was apparent for eachpossible option, as the experts rapidly scanned and searched the options, and their gazes rarelyreturned to the topic.

Furthermore, after spatial training, the novices were all able to solve solid- and planar-expandingfigure questions, which increased their answer rate. Therefore, this research design can effectivelyincrease students’ spatial visualization abilities. However, a few novices were unable to improve

Figure 10: Line-of-sight path for Novice A4’s correct answer to solid- and planar-expanding figures

Figure 11: Line-of-sight path and fixation-time distribution diagrams for Novice A5’s correct answer to spatialrotation and reasoning



their spatial rotation and reasoning skills. Tracking visualization showed that when studentsexecuted the spatial visualization instructional strategy, they were unable to follow the referencepoints for key areas, locate problem-solving clues or manipulate, rotate, reverse or flip theobject in their minds, indicating that the spatial training process lacked specific operationalactivities.

ConclusionIn this study, we used eye-movement tracking and visual-image stimulation to record partici-pants’ spatial visualization performance. Measurable eye-movement characteristics, such as thenumber of fixation points in the line-of-sight path, the total fixation time, the average fixationtime, and the number and amplitude of line-of-sight oscillations between images, were usedto select the typical line-of-sight path used by novices for that type of question and to facilitatefurther analysis.

The results for the spatial visualization abilities of students aged 11–12 years suggestedthat further expansion of the study parameters is necessary to compare the spatial ability eyemovements of students of different ages and sexes. Other spatial ability dimensions can also beincluded to develop related training and effectively enhance education. Furthermore, this studyused only eye-movement analysis data to assess the participants’ behavior. Future researchshould provide a detailed breakdown of the areas of interest in the topics for the observers tostatistically examine indicators, such as the fixation time and oscillation rate produced by variousregions.

ReferencesAlias, M., Gray, D. E. & Black, T. R. (2002). Attitudes towards sketching and drawing and the relation-

ship with spatial visualization ability in engineering students. International Education Journal, 3, 3, 165–175.

Alonso, D. L. (1998). “The effects of individual differences in spatial visualization ability on dual-taskperformance”. Dissertation of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland. Retrieved from 2011.The effect of inquiry-based explorations in a dynamic geometry environment on sixth grade students’achievements in polygons. Computers & Education, 57, 4, 2462–2475. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.002.

Boucheix, J.-M. & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye-tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internalcontinuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 2, 123–135.doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.015.

Chen, H.-C., Lai, H.-D. & Chiu, F.-C. (2010). Eye tracking technology for learning and Education. Journal ofResearch in Education Sciences, 55, 4, 39–68. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/jres/eng/j55/j554.

Clements, D. H. & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York: Macmillan.

Figure 12: Line-of-sight path for Novice A6’s incorrect answer to spatial rotation and reasoning



De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P. & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning fromcomplex animation: seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20, 2, 111–122. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010.

Douglas, K. M. & Bilkey, D. K. (2007). Amusia is associated with deficits in spatial processing. NatureNeuroscience, 10, 7, 915–921. doi:10.1038/nn1925.

Erbas, A. K. & Yenmez, A. A. (2011). The effect of inquiry-based explorations in a dynamic geometryenvironment on sixth grade students’ achievements in polygons. Computers & Education, 57, 4, 2462–2475. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.002.

Freudenthal, H. (1972). Mathematics as an Educational Task (Vol. 1—analysis of eye-tracking research inprofessional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 4, 523–552. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9174-7.

Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E. & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualiza-tions: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review,23, 4, 523–552. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9174-7.

Gorgorió, N. (1998). Starting a research project with immigrant students: constraints, possibilities, obser-vations and challenges. In P. Gates & T. Cotton (Eds), Proceedings of the First International MathematicsEducation and Society Conference (MEAS1) (pp. 190–196). Nottingham: Centre for The Study of Math-ematics Education, Nottingham University.

Hristova, E. & Grinberg, M. (2005). Information acquisition in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game: aneye-tracking study. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (Eds), Proceedings of the 27th AnnualConference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 983–988). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved February 1,2011, from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2005/docs/p983.pdf

Idris, N. (2005). Spatial visualization and geometry achievement of form two students. Jurnal Pendidikan,Universiti Malaya, 29–40. ISSN 0126-5261. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/5419

Jeng, H.-L. & Chen, S.-Y. (2007). Model exploration and validation of the standardized spatial ability test.Journal of Educational Research and Development, 3, 4, 181–216. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://journal.naer.edu.tw/uploadfiles/0vol011_07vol011_07.pdf

Kurtulus, A. & Uygan, C. (2010). The effects of Google Sketchup based geometry activities and projects onspatial visualization ability of student mathematics teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 0,384–389. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.169.

Linn, M. C. & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability:a meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 6, 1479–1498. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00213.x.

Liu, H.-C., Lai, M.-L. & Chuang, H.-H. (2011). Using eye-tracking technology to investigate the redundanteffect of multimedia web pages on viewers’ cognitive processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 6,2410–2417. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.012.

Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advancesin the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 40, pp. 181–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Luís Saorín, J., Contero, M., Alcañiz, M., Pérez-López, D. C. & Ortega, M. (2010). Designand validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students. Computers& Graphics, 34, 1, 77–91. doi: 10.1016/j.cag.2009.11.003.

Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics.Learning and Instruction, 20, 2, 167–171. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Pitta-Pantazi, D. & Christou, C. (2010). Spatial versus object visualisation: the case of mathematical under-

standing in three-dimensional arrays of cubes and nets. International Journal of Educational Research, 49,2–3, 102–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2010.10.001.

Salvucci, D. D. & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Tracing eye movement protocols with cognitive process models. InM. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive ScienceSociety (pp. 923–928). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schofield, J. & Kirby, J. (1994). Position location on topographical maps: effects of task factors, training, andstrategies. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 1, 35–60. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1201_2.

Schwonke, R., Berthold, K. & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and howthey can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227–1243. doi: 10.1002/acp.1526.

Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E. & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference.Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322. doi: 10.1038/nn1150.

Tsai, M.-J., Hou, H.-T., Lai, M.-L., Liu, W.-Y. & Yang, F.-Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choicescience problem: an eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 58, 1, 375–385. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.012.



van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P. & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance during example studyvia the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 3, 785–791. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.007.

van Gog, T. & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learningand Instruction, 20, 2, 95–99. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.009.

van Nes, F. & van Eerde, D. (2010). Spatial structuring and the development of number sense: a casestudy of young children working with blocks. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 3, 145–159.doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.08.001.

Wanzel, K. R., Hamstra, S. J., Anastakis, D. J., Matsumoto, E. D. & Cusimano, M. D. (2002). Effect ofvisual-spatial ability on learning of spatially-complex surgical skills. Lancet, 359, 230–231. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07441-X.

Wei, C.-L. & Chen, K.-H. (2006). A study of integrating information technology into solid net course forfourth graders. Journal of National Taipei University of Education, 19, 2, 65–102. Retrieved February 1,2011, from http://academic.ntue.edu.tw/ezfiles/7/1007/img/41/19-2-24.pdf

Wiener, J. M., Hölscher, C., Buechner, S. J. & Konieczny, L. (2009). How the Geometry of Space controlsVisual Attention during Spatial Decision Making. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds), Proceedings ofthe Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2009 (pp. 2286–2291). Amsterdam, NL. RetrievedFebruary 1, 2011, from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2009/papers/533/index.html

Wu, M.-Y. (2004). The study of spatial ability learning for fourth graders: take solid geometric net as an example(Master Thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan).

Yakimanskaya, I. S. (1991). The development of spatial thinking in schoolchildren (Robert H. Silverman, Trans.)(Vol. 3). Chicago: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (originally published in 1980).

Yildiz, B. (2009). The effects of three dimensional virtual environments and concrete manipulatives on spatialvisualisation and mental rotation abilities (Master Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara).

Yu, C. & Smith, L. B. (2011). What you learn is what you see: using eye movements to study infantcross-situational word learning. Developmental Science, 14, 2, 165–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00958.x.



Documents

The learning benefits of using eye trackers to enhance the geospatial abilities of elementary school students