An Experimental Study on Tracking Identity of Moving Shapes: Do Stimulus Complexity and Familiarity Affect Tracking Accuracy of Male and Female Students?

Shuyang Zhang(1), Hashvini B. Kaliselvan(2), Tong Zhang(3), Aini Marina Ma'rof(4*)

(1) Universiti Putra Malaysia
(2) Universiti Putra Malaysia
(3) Universiti Putra Malaysia
(4) Universiti Putra Malaysia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

The current study explored the effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity on tracking accuracy between male and female postgraduate students in Malaysia. Since online courses are not restricted by location, the convenience of recording classes has become a steady trend, especially during the COVID-19 period. However, some are also skeptical about the efficacy of online teaching and learning through the digital environment and believe that the stimulus generated on these foundations will result in undesirable consequences (Dhawan, 2020). As student attention determines their tracking accuracy, external factors like stimulus complexity and familiarity tend to be an obstacle for students to be attentive.  In this quantitative experimental study named "Simon Effect", 24 postgraduate students (12 males and 12 females) in a Malaysian public research university were used as samples to test whether or not gender plays a role in tracking accuracy. Results show that gender does not influence the tracking accuracy of postgraduate students. At the same time, the stimulus complexity and familiarity do influence the tracking accuracy of the postgraduate students. The implication of the study lies in promoting the teaching and learning sessions not only for a postgraduate student but for all the students in different educational levels during the COVID-19 period and maximizing the educational outcomes.

Keywords

Online courses; eye-tracking; attention; teaching and learning; COVID-19

Full Text:

PDF

References

Alqahtani, F. (2019). Investigating the Effect of Structure Complexity on Students’ Recognition of the Subject Slot. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation (IJLLT), 2(6), 77-82. doi: 10.32996/ijllt.2019.2.6.10

Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional communication, 46(4), 298-312.

Bunce, D., Flens, E., & Neiles, K. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1438-1443.

Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three-year study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6).

Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of Covid-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology, 5-22.

Goldstein, E. B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.

Harackiewicz, J., Smith, J., & Priniski, s. (2016, October). Interest Matters: The Importance of Promoting Interest in Education. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci, 3(2), 220-227. doi:10.1177/2372732216655542

Hyona, J., Oksama, L., & Rantanen, e. (2020). Tracking the identity of moving words: Stimulus complexity and familiarity affects tracking accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34, 64-77. doi:10.1002/acp.3589

Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological bulletin, 70(6p1), 387.

Klein, P., Lichtenberger, A., Küchemann, S., Becker, S., Kekule, M., Viiri, J., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Visual attention while solving the test of understanding graphs in kinematics: an eye-tracking analysis. European Journal of Physics, 41(2), 025701.

Laaksonen, M. S., Finkenzeller, T., Holmberg, H. C., & Sattlecker, G. (2018). The influence of physiobiomechanical parameters, technical aspects of shooting, and psychophysiological factors on biathlon performance: a review. Journal of sport and health science, 7(4), 394-404.

Li, J., Oksama, L., & Hyönä, J. (2019). Model of multiple identity tracking (MOMIT) 2.0: resolving the serial vs. parallel controversy in tracking. Cognition, 182, 260-274.

McQuirter, R. (2020). Lessons on Change: Shifting to online learning during COVID-19. Brock Education: A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 29(2), 47-51.

Merritt, P., Hirshman, E., Wharton, W., Stangl, B., Devlin, J., & Lenz, A. (2007). Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 597-609.

Mindtap. (2020). CogLab: The Online Cognition Lab. (Cengage Learning Lte. Ptd) Retrieved from Cengage web site: https://coglab.cengage.com/labs/simon_effect.shtml

Oksama, L., & Hyona, J. (2016). Position tracking and identity tracking are separate systems: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 393-409.

Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., Sitthiworachart, J., & López, M. J. (2020). Effects on response time and accuracy of technology-enhanced cloze tests: an eye-tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 (5), 2033-2053.

Yavari, F., & Shafiee, S. (2019). Effects of Shadowing and Tracking on Intermediate EFL Learners' Oral Fluency. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 869

DOI: 10.23917/varidika.v33i2.16167

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 260 time(s)
PDF: 152 time(s)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.