Role of diagrams in problem solving: An evaluation of eye-tracking parameters as a measure of visual attention
Ana Sušac, Andreja Bubić, Maja Planinić, Marko Movre, Marijan Palmović · 2019 · 47 citationsRead the paper
Typical physics textbook problems often include supportive diagrams that visualize the physical situation although the potential benefits of providing such diagrams is not yet fully established. We used eye tracking to explore the role of supportive diagrams in problem solving. Including a supportive diagram with the text of the problem improved students' percentage of correct answer in one of the six problems used in the study. Eye-tracking data showed that students typically spent less time on the text of the problem if they were presented with a diagram, but the total viewing time did not change. When a diagram was presented students split their attention between the diagram and the text without speeding up problem solving. Cognitive load theory and dual coding theory suggest that giving information in two formats (verbal and visual) might reduce extraneous cognitive load and leave more cognitive resources available for further steps in problem solving. However, this does not necessarily lead to a higher percentage of correct answers to the problem, because supportive diagrams influence only one step of the complex process of problem solving. In addition to the role of diagrams, we evaluated different eye-tracking measures as measures of visual attention during physics problem solving. It seems that the fixation duration is rather constant, and not always sensitive to the manipulation in the task. On the other hand, dwell time and the number of fixations show more variability across problems and participants, so they seem to be appropriate measures of the visual attention. Since dwell time and fixation number are dependent measures, and they show a similar pattern of responses, in most cases it seems sufficient to report only one of them.
What the full text shows
Shown in the lab- Supportive diagrams improved the percentage of correct answers for only one of the six physics problems (Q3). — p = 0.01 for Q3; overall difference not statistically significant (p > 0.05) (Undergraduate physics students solving multiple-choice energy problems)
- Students spent less time reading the problem text when a diagram was provided, but total viewing time remained unchanged. (Comparison between diagram and no-diagram conditions)
- Dwell time and fixation number are more sensitive and appropriate measures of visual attention than fixation duration for physics problem solving. (Across 6 problems and 60 participants)
- Fixation duration remained relatively constant regardless of task manipulation. (Across 6 problems and 60 participants)
- Setup
- 60 senior undergraduate prospective physics teachers; 6 multiple-choice questions on energy.
- How
- The researchers used eye-tracking to monitor 60 students solving six multiple-choice physics problems, comparing conditions with and without supportive diagrams. They analyzed dwell time, fixation number, and average fixation duration across three areas of interest (text, answers, and diagram).
- Limitations
- Small effect of diagrams on overall correctness · Fixation duration is not sensitive to task manipulation in this context · Results may be specific to the type of physics problems used (energy)
Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 8 Oct 2026. Read it