- 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

Students’ eye-movement behaviors in solving physics problems with different information structures

Shaorui Xu1,2,3, Qiuye Li1,2,*, Yilin Chen4, Yang Xiao1,2,†, and Shaona Zhou1,2,‡

  • 1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Quantum Engineering and Quantum Materials, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Physics Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
  • 2National Research Center for Educational Materials (Elementary and Middle School Physics Materials Research), Guangdong Basic Research Center of Excellence for Structure and Fundamental Interactions of Matter, Key Laboratory of Atomic and Subatomic Structure and Quantum Control (Ministry of Education), South China Normal University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
  • 3School of Electronics and Communication, Guangdong Mechanical and Electrical Polytechnic, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510550, People’s Republic of China
  • 4No. 1 Middle School of Jiexi County, Jieyang, Guangdong 515499, People’s Republic of China

  • *Contact author: 2019021855@m.scnu.edu.cn
  • †Contact author: 20092305002@m.scnu.edu.cn
  • ‡Contact author: zhou.shaona@m.scnu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010148 – Published 24 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/5ycs-7v84

Abstract

Students’ problem-solving processes have attracted a wide range of attention. From an information processing perspective, we distinguish three types of physics problems: information-explicit, information-redundant, and information-implicit. This study explores students’ visual behaviors when they were doing problem solving with these three types of problems. The participant sample included 90 high school students. Eye-tracking technology was used to record their eye movements while they solved each type of problem. The results showed that although students’ accuracy did not differ significantly across the three problem types, their eye-movement behaviors exhibited differences. Students displayed longer total fixation times on information-redundant problems, particularly in the text and option areas, suggesting increased cognitive effort caused by extraneous information. In contrast, information-implicit problems elicited the highest number of revisits to the text area, indicating students’ repeated attempts to extract obscured information. Moreover, students devoted more fixation time and more revisits to the correct option in information-explicit problems, whereas information-redundant and information-implicit problems resulted in longer fixation and more revisits to incorrect options. These findings indicated that students’ visual attention patterns were influenced by the information structures of the physics problems, even though their performance outcomes did not significantly differ. The study highlights the importance of problem design in supporting students’ effective reasoning and information integration.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (82)

  1. P. K. Tao, Detection of missing and irrelevant information within paper and pencil physics problems, Res. Sci. Educ. 22, 387 (1992).
  2. R. Scherer and R. Tiemann, Evidence on the effects of task interactivity and grade level on thinking skills involved in complex problem solving, Think. Skills Creat. 11, 48 (2014).
  3. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. Simon, and H. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208, 1335 (1980).
  4. C. Singh, When physical intuition fails, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1103 (2002).
  5. R. E. Mayer, Thinking, Problem Solving and Cognition (Freeman, San Francisco, 1983).
  6. R. E. Mayer, Mathematical ability, in Human Abilities: An Information Processing Approach, edited by R. J.Sternberg (Freeman, New York, 1985).
  7. J. Milbourne and E. Wiebe, The role of content knowledge in Ill-structured problem solving for high school physics students, Res. Sci. Educ. 48, 165 (2018).
  8. G. Knoblich, S. Ohlsson, and G. E. Raney and, An eye movement study of insight problem solving, Mem. Cognit. 29, 2001 (1000)..
  9. S. Greiff and A. Fischer, Measuring complex problem solving: An educational application of psychological theories, J. Edu. Res. Online 5, 38 (https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/measuring-complex-problem-solving-educational/docview/1439081767/se-2.2013).
  10. L. W. van Meeuwen, H. Jarodzka, S. Brand-Gruwel, P. A. Kirschner, J. J. de Bock, and J. J. van Merriënboer, Identification of effective visual problem solving strategies in a complex visual domain, Learn. Instr. 32, 10 (2014).
  11. D. H. Jonassen, Assessing Problem Solving (Springer, New York, 2014), pp. 269–288.
  12. D. H. Jonassen, Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments (Routledge, New York, 2010).
  13. M. Kekule and J. Viiri, Students approaches to solving R-FCI tasks observed by eye-tracking method, Sci. Educ. 9, 117 (2018).
  14. C. J. Wu and C. Y. Liu, Eye-movement study of high- and low-prior-knowledge students scientific argumentations with multiple representations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010125 (2021).
  15. B. Ibrahim and L. Ding, Sequential and simultaneous synthesis problem solving: A comparison of students’ gaze transitions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010126 (2021).
  16. J. J. G. van Merriënboer, R. E. Clark, and M. B. M. de Croock, Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 50, 39 (2002).
  17. Y. Hu, B.Wu, and X.Gu, An eye tracking study of high-and low-performing students in solving interactive and analytical problems, Educ. Technol. Soc. 20, 300 (2017).https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323838066.
  18. X. Roegiers, Des Situations Pour Intégrer les Acquis Scolaires: Conception et élaboration (De Boeck Supérieur, Bruxelles, 2000).
  19. M. L. Lai , A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012, Educ. Res. Rev. 10, 90 (2013).
  20. T. van Gog and K. Scheiter, Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning, Learn. Instr. 20, 95 (2010).
  21. N. Ariasi and L. Mason, Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study, Instr. Sci. 39, 581 (2011).
  22. V. Whitford and D. Titone, Second-language experience modulates first- and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19, 73 (2012).
  23. B. Rehder and A. B. Hoffman, Eye tracking and selective attention in category learning, Cognit. Psychol. 51, 1 (2005).
  24. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Eye tracking in physics education research: A systematic literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 013102 (2022).
  25. S. C. Cheng, H. C. She, and L. Y.Huang, The impact of problem-solving instruction on middle school students physical science learning: Interplays of knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 14, 731 (2018).
  26. J. L. Cook and J. J. Rieser, Finding the critical facts: Childrens visual scan patterns when solving story problems that contain irrelevant information, J. Educ. Psychol. 97, 224 (2005).
  27. J. Littlefield and J. J. Rieser, Semantic features of similarity and childrens strategies for identification of relevant information in mathematical story problems, Cognit. Instr. 11, 133 (1993).
  28. T. L. Adams, Reading mathematics: More than words can say, Read. Teach. 56, 786 (2003). https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA101762241&sid=googleScholar &v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=00340561&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Efa32fe75&aty=open-web-entry.
  29. O. Chapman, Classroom practices for context of mathematics word problems, Educ. Stud. Math. 62, 211 (2006).
  30. A. Y. Wang, L. S. Fuchs, and D. Fuchs, Cognitive and linguistic predictors of mathematical word problems with and without irrelevant information, Learn. Individ. Differ. 52, 79 (2016).
  31. R. Helwig, M. S. Rosek-Toedesco, B. Heath G.Tindal, and P. J. Almond, Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students, J. Educ. Res. 93, 113 (1999).
  32. A. I. Garcia, J. E. Jimenez, and S. Hess, Solving arithmetic word problems: An analysis of classification as a function of difficulty in children with and without arithmetic, J. Learn. Disabil. 39, 270 (2006).
  33. L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte, and S. Lasure, Realistic considerations in mathematical modeling of school arithmetic word problems, Learn. Instr. 4, 273 (1994).
  34. N. Fan, J. H. Mueller, and A. E. Marini, Solving difference problems: Wording primes coordination, Cognit. Instr. 12, 355 (1994).
  35. N. Jeremy, L. Kerry, and H. K. Kiat, Irrelevant information in math problems need not be inhibited: Students might just need to spot them, Learn. Individ. Differ. 60, 46 (2017).
  36. M. M. E. Lindquist, Results from the Fourth Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 1989).
  37. C. A. Brown, Secondary school results for the fourth NAEP mathematics assessment: Algebra, geometry, mathematical methods, and attitudes,Math. Teach. 81, 337 (1988).
  38. V. L. Kouba, D. Wearne, and A. Kenney, Whole number properties and operations, in Results from the Seventh Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, edited by E. A. Silver and P. A.Kenney (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 2000), pp. 141–161.
  39. R. Low and R. Over, Detection of missing and irrelevant information within algebraic story problems, Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 59, 296 (1989).
  40. R. Low and R. Over, Gender differences in solution of algebraic word problems containing irrelevant information, J. Educ. Psychol. 85, 331 (1993).
  41. K. D. Muth, Extraneous information and extra steps in arithmetic word problems, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 17, 278 (1992).
  42. G. M. Marzocchi, D. Lucangeli, T. De Meo, F. Fini, and C. Cornoldi, The disturbing effect of irrelevant information on arithmetic problem solving in inattentive children, Dev. Neuropsychol. 21, 73 (2002).
  43. Q. Wang, L. Wei, Y. Zhu, and H. Deng, Visual attention pattern of middle school students during problem-solving in physics, Mind Brain Educ. 16, 99 (2022).
  44. X. Roegiers, The Pedagogy of Integration, or How to Develop Competences at the School? (Translated by Đào Trong Quang and Nguyen Ngoc Nhi) (Vietnam Education Publishing House, Hà Nôi, 1996).
  45. X. Roegiers, L’école et l’évaluation [Schools and evaluation] (De Boeck Supérieur, Bruxelles, 2004).
  46. A. Peyser, F.-M. Gérard, and X. Roegiers, Implementing a pedagogy of integration: Some thoughts based on a textbook elaboration experience in Vietnam, Plan. Changing 37, 37 (2006).
  47. A. Sebaganwa, Introducing complex situations in primary education: Their impact on student’s results in terms of efficiency, Int. J. Educ. 5, 93 (2013).
  48. X. Roegiers, Une Pédagogie de l’intégration. Compétences et Intégration des Acquis Dans l’enseignement (De Boeck Supérieur, Bruxelles, 2003).
  49. X. Roegiers, Curricular reforms guide schools: But where to?, Prospects 37, 155 (2007).
  50. H. Jarodzka, K. Holmqvist, and H. Gruber, Eye tracking in educational science: Theoretical frameworks and research agendas, J. Eye Movement Res. 10, 1 (2017).
  51. M. J. Tsai, H. T. Hou, M. L. Lai, W. Y. Liu, and F. Y. Yang, Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis, Comput. Educ 58, 375 (2012).
  52. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter, A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension, Psychol. Rev. 87, 329 (1980).
  53. P. Y. Tsai, H. C. She, S. C. Chen, L. Y. Huang, W. C. Chou, J. R. Duann, and T. P. Jung, Eye fixation-related fronto-parietal neural network correlates of memory retrieval, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 138, 57 (2019).
  54. J. M. Boucheix and R. K. Lowe, An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations, Learn. Instr. 20, 123 (2010).
  55. K. Krstic, A. Soskic, V. Kovic, and K. Holmqvist, All good readers are the same, but every low-skilled reader is different: An eye-tracking study using PISA data, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 33, 521 (2018).
  56. T. van Gog, F. Paas, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, and P. Witte, Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting, J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 11, 237 (2005).
  57. K. Rayner, Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research, Psychol. Bull. 124, 372 (1998).
  58. K. Rayner, A. Pollatsek, J. Ashby, and C. Clifton, Psychology of Reading, 2nd ed. (Psychology Press, New York, 2012).
  59. E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, and A. Pauwels, Influence of the semantic structure of word problems on second graders eye movements, J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 359 (1990).
  60. L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte, and A. Pauwels, Solving compare problems: An eye movement test of Lewis and Mayers consistency hypothesis, J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 85 (1992).
  61. K. Rayner and G. W. McConkie, What guides a readers eye movements?, Vision Res. 16, 829 (1976).
  62. M. Hegarty, R. E. Mayer, and C. E. Green, Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: Evidence from students eye fixations, J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 76 (1992).
  63. M. Hegarty, R. E. Mayer, and C. A. Monk, Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers, J. Educ. Psychol. 87, 18 (1995).
  64. M. van der Schoot, A. H. Bakker Arkema, T. M. Horsley, and E. C. D. M. van Lieshout, The consistency effect depends on markedness in less successful but not successful problem solvers: An eye movement study in primary school children, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 58 (2009).
  65. Q. Y. Li, S. R. Xu, Y. L. Chen, C. T. Lu, and S. N. Zhou, Detecting preservice teachers visual attention under prediction and nonprediction conditions with eye-tracking technology, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010134 (2022).
  66. K. Wright, Eye tracking gets complex, Physics 14, 59 (2021).
  67. H. Jarodzka, K. Scheiter, P. Gerjets, and T. van Gog, In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli, Learn. Instr. 20, 146 (2010).
  68. A. M. Madsen, A. Rouinfar, A. M. Larson, L. C. Loschky, and N. S. Rebello, Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020104 (2013).
  69. A. Susac, A. Bubic, J. Kaponja, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Eye movements reveal students strategies in simple equation solving, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12, 555 (2014).
  70. 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).
  71. 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).
  72. J. Hyönä, R. F. Lorch, and J. K. Kaakinen, Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns, J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 44 (2002).
  73. T. Tullis and B. Albert, Behavioral and physiological metrics, in Measuring the User Experience, 2nd ed., edited by T. Tullis and B.Albert (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Burlington, 2008), pp. 163–186.
  74. D. Gandini, P. Lemaire, and S. Dufau, Older and younger adults strategies in approximate quantification, Acta Psychol. 129, 175 (2008).
  75. D. H. Jonassen, Toward a design theory of problem solving, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48, 63 (2000).
  76. S. Kinda, Generating multiple answers for a word problem with insufficient information, Instr. Sci. 40, 1021 (2012).
  77. L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte, and I. Borghart, Pre-service teachers conceptions and beliefs about the role of real-world knowledge in mathematical modelling of school word problems, Learn. Instr. 7, 339 (1997).
  78. K. Reusser and R. Stebler, Every word problem has a solution: The social rationality of mathematical modelling in schools, Learn. Instr. 7, 309 (1997).
  79. H. Yoshida, L. Verschaffel, and E. De Corte, Realistic considerations in solving problematic word problems: Do Japanese and Belgian children have the same difficulties?, Learn. Instr. 7, 329 (1997).
  80. M. C. Passolunghi, C. Cornoldi, and S. De Liberto, Working memory and intrusions of irrelevant information in a group of specific poor problem solvers, Mem. Cognit. 27, 779 (1999).
  81. V. A. Krutetskii, The Psychology of Mathematical Abilities in School Children (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976).
  82. K. Mori and M. Okamoto, The role of the updating function in solving arithmetic word problems, J. Educ. Psychol. 109, 245 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010148– Published 24 June, 2026
  • Received 2 December 2025
  • Accepted 5 May 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