- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Difficulties in diagram interpretation in physics: An eye-tracking study of visual attention and diagram interpretation strategies

M. Klassen* and G. Friege†

  • Institute for Mathematics and Physics Education, Physics Education Research Group, Leibniz University Hannover, Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany

  • *Contact author: klassen@idmp.uni-hannover.de
  • †Contact author: friege@idmp.uni-hannover.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010121 – Published 23 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/58hn-493c

Abstract

Analyzing and understanding the differences between novices and experts in domains such as physics has been proven to be important for enhancing competence acquisition in that field. This study investigates these differences through an expert-novice comparison by analyzing visual attention, cognitive strategies, and behavior during scientific diagram interpretation. A total of 23 participants (11 novices and 12 experts) completed 10 diagram-based tasks, while their eye movements and verbalizations were recorded. Experts outperformed novices across several dimensions: higher task success (86% vs 70%), significantly greater visual efficiency (23% vs 17%), and longer dwell times in task-relevant areas. Their shorter, more structured scan paths reflected goal-directed, conceptually driven strategies. In contrast, novices showed disoriented gaze behavior, frequent shifts between the diagram and task text, and relied on surface-level reverse-matching strategies, indicating higher extraneous cognitive load. Think-aloud data revealed qualitative reasoning differences: experts used precise, technical language and referenced diagrams accurately, while novices were vague, hesitant, and uncertain. Emotional expressions in novice protocols aligned with signs of cognitive overload. These findings support cognitive load theory, suggesting experts draw on schemas to manage intrinsic load, while novices struggle with element interactivity. Unexpectedly, some experts in the study showed novicelike behavior, whereas some novices exhibited patterns typically associated with expert performance. Novicelike experts often lacked recent exposure to diagram-related coursework. Conversely, some novices demonstrated efficient gaze patterns and structured scanning but still made conceptual errors. To contextualize human performance, two large language models (ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek-R1) were tested on the same tasks. ChatGPT-4 reached an overall success rate of 50%, handling simple extractions but failing with visual relationships. DeepSeek-R1 performed poorly (10%), revealing current AI limitations in visual interpretation. These results underscore the uniquely human capacity for visual reasoning, schema activation, and metacognitive monitoring, which AI still lacks. The findings emphasize the critical role of graph literacy, representational competence, and cognitive strategy use in diagram interpretation. They highlight the need for explicit instructional interventions to help novices develop expertlike visual attention patterns and reasoning skills.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (63)

  1. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Eye tracking in physics education research: A systematic literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 013102 (2022).
  2. A. Gegenfurtner, E. Lehtinen, and R. Säljö, Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 23, 523 (2011).
  3. S. Brams, G. Ziv, O. Levin, J. Spitz, J. Wagemans, A. M. Williams, and W. F. Helsen, The relationship between gaze behavior, expertise, and performance: A systematic review, Psychol. Bull. 145, 980 (2019).
  4. Y. Okan, M. Galesic, and R. Garcia-Retamero, How people with low and high graph literacy process health graphs: Evidence from eye-tracking, Behav. Decis. Making 29, 271 (2016).
  5. E. G. Freedman and P. Shah, Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension, in Diagrammatic Representation and Inference edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, J. van Leeuwen, M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, and N. H. Narayanan (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002), pp. 18–30.
  6. P. Shah and E. G. Freedman, Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes, Top. Cognit. Sci. 3, 560 (2011).
  7. M. Galesic and R. Garcia-Retamero, Graph literacy: A cross-cultural comparison, Med. Decis. Making 31, 444 (2011).
  8. S. Pinker and R. Feedle, Theory of graph comprehension, in Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, edited by R. Freedle (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990), pp. 73–126.
  9. R. M. Ratwani and J. G. Trafton, Shedding light on the graph schema: Perceptual features versus invariant structure, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 757 (2008).
  10. D. Rosengrant, C. Thomson, T. Mzoughi, M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh, Comparing experts and novices in solving electrical circuit problems with the help of eye-tracking, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 249 (2009).
  11. J. Sweller, Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 123 (2010).
  12. L. C. McDermott, M. L. Rosenquist, and E. H. van Zee, Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics, Am. J. Phys. 55, 503 (1987).
  13. A. Susac, A. Bubic, P. Martinjak, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Graphical representations of data improve student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020125 (2017).
  14. N. Glazer, Challenges with graph interpretation:A review of the literature, Stud. Sci. Educ. 47, 183 (2011).
  15. P. Shah and J. Hoeffner, Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 47 (2002).
  16. S. Ainsworth, The functions of multiple representations, Comput. Educ. 33, 131 (1999).
  17. J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon, Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cogn. Sci. 11, 65 (1987).
  18. C. F. J. Pols, P. J. J. M. Dekkers, and M. J. de Vries, What do they know? Investigating students’ ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 43, 274 (2021).
  19. M. A. Rau, Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 717 (2017).
  20. D. Carraher and A. Schliemann, The transfer dilemma, J. Learn. Sci. 11, 1 (2002).
  21. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  22. P. Klein, A. Lichtenberger, S. Küchemann, S. Becker, M. Kekule, J. Viiri, C. Baadte, A. Vaterlaus, and J. Kuhn, Visual attention while solving the test of understanding graphs in kinematics: An eye-tracking analysis, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 025701 (2020).
  23. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Clustering eye-movement data uncovers students’ strategies for coordinating equations and diagrams of vector fields, Educ. Stud. Math. 118, 359 (2025).
  24. C. Wang and B. Wei, Analysis of visual-based physics questions of the senior high school entrance examination in China, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010112 (2024).
  25. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, edited by S. F. Brennan and C. Hastings (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1997).
  26. J. H. Flavell, Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol. 34, 906 (1979).
  27. T. de Jong, Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought, Instr. Sci. 38, 105 (2010).
  28. M. Chi, R. Glaser, and E. Rees, Expertise in problem solving, in Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, edited by R. J. Sternberg (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982), Vol. 1, pp. 7–75.
  29. F. Gobet, P. C. Lane, S. Croker, P. C.-H. Cheng, G. Jones, I. Oliver, and J. M. Pine, Chunking mechanisms in human learning, Trends Cognit. Sci. 5, 236 (2001).
  30. H. Haider and P. A. Frensch, The role of information reduction in skill acquisition, Cogn. Psychol. 30, 304 (1996).
  31. H. Haider and P. A. Frensch, Eye movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis, J. Exp. Psychol. 25, 172 (1999).
  32. K. Stofer and X. Che, Comparing experts and novices on scaffolded data visualizations using eye-tracking, J. Eye. Mov. Res. 7, 1 (2015).
  33. A. Gegenfurtner, Cognitive theory of visual expertise, edited by A. Gegenfurtner and R. Stahnke, Teacher Professional Vision: Theoretical and Methodological Advances (Routledge, London, 2024), pp. 71–85.
  34. A. Susac, A. Bubic, E. Kazotti, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Student understanding of graph slope and area under a graph: A comparison of physics and nonphysics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020109 (2018).
  35. P. Klein, J. Viiri, S. Mozaffari, A. Dengel, and J. Kuhn, Instruction-based clinical eye-tracking study on the visual interpretation of divergence: How do students look at vector field plots?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010116 (2018).
  36. P. Klein, J. Viiri, and J. Kuhn, Visual cues improve students’ understanding of divergence and curl: Evidence from eye movements during reading and problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010126 (2019).
  37. V. Ruf, Y. Dinc, S. Küchemann, M. Berndt, S. Steinert, D. Kugelmann, J. Bortfeldt, J. Schreiber, M. R. Fischer, and J. Kuhn, Comparison and AI-based prediction of graph comprehension skills based on the visual strategies of first-year physics and medicine students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020138 (2024).
  38. D. Maloney, An overview of physics education research on problem solving, in Getting Started in PER, edited by C. Henderson and K. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, 2011), Vol. 2.
  39. L. Hsu, E. Brewe, T. M. Foster, and K. A. Harper, Resource letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1147 (2004).
  40. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  41. B.-S. Eylon and F. Reif, Effects of knowledge organization on task performance, Cognit. Instr. 1, 5 (1984).
  42. J. H. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem-solving in physics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
  43. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science (New York, N.Y.) 208, 1335 (1980).
  44. F. Reif and J. I. Heller, Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics, Educ. Psychol. 17, 102 (1982).
  45. E. Bagno and B.-S. Eylon, From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism, Am. J. Phys. 65, 726 (1997).
  46. R. Elio and P. B. Scharf, Modeling novice-to-expert shifts in problem-solving strategy and knowledge organization, Cogn. Sci. 14, 579 (1990).
  47. K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, S38 (1999).
  48. J. L. Docktor, N. E. Strand, J. P. Mestre, and B. H. Ross, Conceptual problem solving in high school physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11 (2015).
  49. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  50. K. Oh, J. T. Almarode, and R. H. Tai, An exploration of think-aloud protocols linked with eye-gaze tracking: Are they talking about what they are looking at, Procedia 93, 184 (2013).
  51. J. Halszka, K. Holmqvist, and H. Gruber, Eye tracking in educational science: Theoretical frameworks and research agendas, J. Eye Mov. Res. 10, 1 (2017).
  52. C. Hoyer and R. Girwidz, Animation and interactivity in computer-based physics experiments to support the documentation of measured vector quantities in diagrams: An eye tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020124 (2020).
  53. A. Susac, A. Bubic, M. Planinic, M. Movre, and M. Palmovic, Role of diagrams in problem solving: An evaluation of eye-tracking parameters as a measure of visual attention, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 013101 (2019).
  54. P. Klein, S. Küchemann, S. Brückner, O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, and J. Kuhn, Student understanding of graph slope and area under a curve: A replication study comparing first-year physics and economics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020116 (2019).
  55. G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on the test of understanding graphs in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010109 (2024).
  56. S. Aldazharova, G. Issayeva, S. Maxutov, and N. Balta, Assessing AI’s problem solving in physics: Analyzing reasoning, false positives and negatives through the force concept inventory, Contemp. Educ. Technol. 16, ep538 (2024).
  57. G. Polverini, J. Melin, E. Önerud, and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on tasks involving physics visual representations: The case of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010154 (2025).
  58. S. Küchemann, S. Malone, P. Edelsbrunner, A. Lichtenberger, E. Stern, R. Schumacher, R. Brünken, A. Vaterlaus, and J. Kuhn, Inventory for the assessment of representational competence of vector fields, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020126 (2021).
  59. A. M. Madsen, A. M. Larson, L. C. Loschky, and N. S. Rebello, Differences in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010122 (2012).
  60. J. A. Harsh, M. Campillo, C. Murray, C. Myers, J. Nguyen, and A. V. Maltese, “Seeing” data like an expert: An eye-tracking study using graphical data representations, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar32 (2019).
  61. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/58hn-493c for representative diagrams from the study.
  62. A. R. Strohmaier, K. J. MacKay, A. Obersteiner, and K. M. Reiss, Eye-tracking methodology in mathematics education research: A systematic literature review, Educ. Stud. Math. 104, 147 (2020).
  63. P. Klein, A. Müller, and J. Kuhn, Assessment of representational competence in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010132 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010121– Published 23 February, 2026
  • Received 12 May 2025
  • Accepted 15 January 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation