Abstract

Syntactic language features of word problems have often been identified by assessment studies and interview studies as potential obstacles in word problem solving. However, students’ processes of noticing and interpreting these features have only rarely been investigated in depth because noticing is hard to investigate. Eye-tracking methodology has already been shown to be a suitable methodology for analyzing noticing other word problem features, but not yet for syntactic features. The longitudinal eye-tracking study presented here analyzes fifth graders’ processes of noticing and interpreting of syntactic word problems before and after an intervention on word problem solving. Based on the eye-mind hypothesis, the study captures students’ noticing through eye-tracking, whereas interpreting can be captured by their solutions. The analysis of pre-intervention data reveals that long fixations cannot be identified with successful noticing and vice versa. But when comparing the net dwell time (i.e., the time that students look at the words indicating syntactic structures) before and after the intervention, an interesting decrease is revealed. This decrease occurs for both expected and less expected syntactic structures, regardless of the accuracy of mathematization. Meanwhile, analyzing the revisits of students indicates differences between items with more or less expected structures and correctly or incorrectly mathematized items. Methodologically, the article contributes to understanding which eye-tracking measures are relevant for capturing changes in students’ processes of noticing syntactic language features: The revisits and scan paths reveal more insights than the net dwell time.

Highlights

  • In the reading and understanding of word problems, different kinds of obstacles have been identified in earlier studies

  • Language obstacles have been shown to be a crucial part, and many assessment studies contributed to identifying potential language obstacles and showing their negative impact on students’ solution rates (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Dyrvold, Bergqvist, & Österholm, 2015; Haag, Heppt, Stanat, Kuhl, & Pant, 2013; further insights will be provided in Section Syntactic Features as Potential Obstacles in Reading and Understanding Word Problems), especially for unexpected syntactic language features, which can change the mathematization of a word problem (Boonen, van der Schoot, van Wesel, de Vries, & Jolles, 2013)

  • In order to investigate the methodological question of how processes of noticing syntactic features in word problems can be characterized using eye-tracking methodology and be related to interpreting the text, we compare the net dwell time for all conditions listed in the research questions: expected or less expected subject-object order (RQ1), for item reading processes that end with students correct or incorrect mathematizations (RQ2), and for the pre-ET and post-intervention eye-tracking experiment (post-ET) (RQ3)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the reading and understanding of word problems, different kinds of obstacles have been identified in earlier studies (for overviews, see Reusser, 1997; Verschaffel, Greer, & de Corte, 2000). Among these obstacles, language obstacles have been shown to be a crucial part, and many assessment studies contributed to identifying potential language obstacles and showing their negative impact on students’ solution rates (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Dyrvold, Bergqvist, & Österholm, 2015; Haag, Heppt, Stanat, Kuhl, & Pant, 2013; further insights will be provided in Section Syntactic Features as Potential Obstacles in Reading and Understanding Word Problems), especially for unexpected syntactic language features, which can change the mathematization of a word problem (Boonen, van der Schoot, van Wesel, de Vries, & Jolles, 2013). In order to contribute to closing this research gap, we used eye-tracking methodology as a promising tool for capturing students’ noticing processes in more detail. Some studies have investigated students’ comprehension of word problems, but mainly with respect to comprehension strategies (Hegarty, Mayer, & Green, 1992; Hegarty, Mayer, & Monk, 1995; Strohmaier, Lehner, Beitlich, & Reiss, 2019; Verschaffel, de Corte, & Pauwels, 1992) rather than syntactic language obstacles

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.