- 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

Building a diagnostic model for misconceptions in physics education using eye tracking technology

Jinmei Liu*, Xuejuan Zhong, Gang Chen†, and Liqing Chen‡

  • *Contact author: jmliu2005@phy.ecnu.edu.cn
  • †Contact author: gchen@phy.ecnu.edu.cn
  • ‡Contact author: lqchen@phy.ecnu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020105 – Published 22 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ttrq-px6t

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis of student misconceptions is crucial for effective science instruction. Traditional diagnostic tools, however, often rely on unreliable self-reported confidence levels. This study developed and validated a two-dimensional diagnostic model that integrates objective eye tracking data with test responses to more robustly identify misconceptions in Newtonian mechanics. The study involved three phases: developing a four-tier diagnostic test, conducting an eye tracking experiment to analyze visual attention patterns (fixation duration, revisits, scan paths) among high school students, and constructing the final model by correlating eye movements with confidence judgments. Consistent with previous research, results showed that students with misconceptions had shorter fixation durations on correct options and displayed inefficient scan paths. Conversely, those with scientific conceptions showed focused attention. As a novel contribution of this study, a “reversed U-shaped” pattern was observed between confidence and revisits, indicating that revisits can serve as an objective measure of cognitive uncertainty. Based on these findings, we propose a two-dimensional “eye tracking-test” model. This model offers a more precise method for diagnosing student understanding, providing a foundation for targeted instructional interventions and fostering a dynamic “teach-learn-assess” feedback loop for personalized physics education.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (43)

  1. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
  2. J. Clement, Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).
  3. P. Tao and R. Gunstone, The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 859 (1999).
  4. M. T. H. Chi, A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics, in the Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. edited by K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006), pp. 21–30.
  5. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Research as a guide for curriculum development: an example from introductory electricity. Part I: investigation of student understanding, Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
  6. L. S. Shulman, Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res. 15, 4 (1986).
  7. L. S. Shulman, Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1 (1987).
  8. G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog, Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 66, 211 (1982).
  9. J. H. van Driel, N. Verloop, and W. de Vos, Developing preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 673 (1998).
  10. D. F. Treagust, Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students misconceptions in science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 10, 159 (1988).
  11. S. Hasan, D. Bagayoko, and E. L. Kelley, Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI), Phys. Educ. 34, 294 (1999).
  12. A. B. Arons and K. Kurki-Suonio, Teaching introductory physics, Eur. J. Phys. 19, 315 (1998).
  13. R. Driver and J. Easley, Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students, Stud. Sci. Educ. 5, 61 (1978).
  14. I. Caleon and R. Subramaniam, Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 939 (2010).
  15. N. Hermita, A. Suhandi, E. Syaodih et al., Constructing and implementing a four tier test about static electricity to diagnose pre-service elementary school teachers misconceptions, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 895, 012167 (2017).
  16. R. E. Nisbett and T. D. Wilson, Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes, Psychol. Rev. 84, 231 (1977).
  17. A. T. Duchowski, Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2017).
  18. K. Rayner, Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62, 1457 (2009).
  19. K. Rayner, Eye movements and information processing: 20 years of research, Psychol. Bull. 124, 372 (1998).
  20. M. J. Tsai, H. T. Hou, M. L. Lai et al., Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis, Comput. Educ. 58, 375 (2012).
  21. T. Berg and W. Brouwer, Teacher awareness of student alternate conceptions about rotational motion and gravity, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 3 (1991).
  22. M. McCloskey, Intuitive physics, Sci. Am. 248, 122 (1983).
  23. L. C. McDermott, Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).
  24. E. F. Redish and J. R. Burciaga, Teaching Physics: With the Physics Suite (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2003), Vol. 1, p. 216.
  25. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  26. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  27. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985).
  28. S. Zhou, Y. Wan, and C. Zhang, Pre-service science teachers’ PCK: Inconsistency of pre-service teachers’ predictions and student learning difficulties in Newton’s third law, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 12, 373 (2016).
  29. M. T. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  30. K. Holmqvist, M. Nyström, R. Andersson et al., Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011).
  31. H. Jarodzka, K. Scheiter, P. Gerjets et al., In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli, Learn. Instr. 20, 146 (2010).
  32. 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).
  33. 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).
  34. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter, A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension, Psychol. Rev. 87, 329 (1980).
  35. J. Hyönä, R. F. Lorch, Jr., and J. K. Kaakinen JrJr, Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns, J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 44 (2002).
  36. Q. Wang, Y. Zhu, L. Wei, and H. Deng, Visual attention pattern of middle school students during problem-solving in physics, Mind Brain Educ. 16, 99 (2022).
  37. J. Han, L. Chen, Z. Fu, J. Fritchman, and L. Bao, Eye-tracking of visual attention in web-based assessment using the force concept inventory, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 045702 (2017).
  38. H. C. She, M. J. Chen, L. Y. Huang, and C. Y. Hsueh, Unfolding the cognitive process underlying computer-based scientific conceptual change with eye tracker: Behavioral performance and sequential analysis of attention, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 20157 (2025).
  39. Physics (Compulsory Volume 1) (People’s Education Press, Beijing, 2019).
  40. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, General Senior Secondary Physics Curriculum Standards (2017 Edition) (People’s Education Press, Beijing, 2025).
  41. T. O. Nelson and L. Narens, Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings, Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 26, 125 (1990).
  42. J. H. Flavell, Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol. 34, 906 (1979).
  43. J. Liu, X. Zhong, G. Chen, and L. Chen, Data for: Building a diagnostic model for misconceptions in physics education using eye tracking technology (2026), 10.1103/ttrq-px6t.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020105– Published 22 July, 2026
  • Received 27 August 2025
  • Accepted 13 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