The symbolic dynamics of visual attention during learning: Exploring the application of orbital decomposition

Complex Dynamical Systems in Education: Concepts, Methods and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 345-378

  Garner, Joanna K ^a   Russell, Daniel M ^a  

^a OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attractor; Attractor landscape; Collective variable; Complex dynamical systems; Complexity; Control parameter; Coupled oscillators; Deterministic; Fractal dimension (DL); Inverse power law distribution (IPL); Linear(Lyapunov exponent; Nonlinear; Note taking; Orbital decomposition (OD); Patterned recurrences; Proximal recurrence; Randomness; Reading; Regularity; Self monitoring; Self organizing; Self regulated learning; Shannon s entropy (HS); Symbolic dynamics; Topological entropy (HT); Visual attention

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008950203     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27577-2_16     Document Type: Chapter

References (81)

1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. 69-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
3. Altemeier, L., Jones, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Executive functions in becoming readers and reading writers: Note taking and report writing in third and fifth graders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 161-173.
4. Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2010). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39, 581-601.
5. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 87-111.
6. Bernacki, M. L., Byrnes, J. P., & Cromley, J. G. (2012). The effects of achievement goals and selfregulated learning behaviors on reading comprehension in technology-enhanced learning environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 148-161.
7. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199-231.
8. Bråten, I., & Stromsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 111-130.
9. Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25, 313-339.
10. Capra, F. (1983). The turning point. Toronto, ON: Bantam.
11. Crutchfield, J. P. (1994). Is anything ever new? Considering emergence. In G. Cowan, D. Pines, & D. Meltzner (Eds.), The science of complexity XIX (pp. 1-15). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2008). Complexity as a theory of education. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 5, 33-44.
13. DeZure, D., Kaplan, M., & Deerman, M. A. (2001). Research on student notetaking: Implications for faculty and graduate student instructors. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. University of Michigan, No. 16. Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource:files/CRLT_no16.pdf
14. Dupreyat, C., & Mariné, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 43-59.
15. Engbet, R., Shiek, M., Scheffczyk, C., Kurths, J., Krampe, R., Kliegl, R., et al. (1997). Symbolic dynamics of physiological synchronization: Examples from bimanual movements and cardiorespiratory synchronization. Nonlinear Analysis, 30, 973-984.
16. Garner, J. K. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive functions and self-regulated learning. Journal of Psychology, 143, 405-426.
17. Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 69-83.
18. Granic, J., & Lamey, A. V. (2002). Combining dynamic systems and multivariate analyses to compare the mother-child interactions of externalizing subtypes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 265-283.
19. Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113, 101-131.
20. Greene, J., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of sophisticated mental models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 18-29.
21. Guastello, S. J. (2000). Symbolic dynamic patterns of written exchanges. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology & Life Sciences, 4, 169-187.
22. Guastello, S. J. (2005). Nonlinear models for the social sciences. In S. A. Whelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Guastello, S. J. (2008). Chaos and conflict: Recognizing patterns. E: CO, 10, 1-9.
24. Guastello, S. J. (2011). Orbital decomposition: Identification of dynamical patterns in categorical data. In S. J. Guastello, & R. A. M. Gregson (Eds.), Nonlinear dynamical systems analysis for the behavioral sciences using real data (pp. 499-516). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
25. Guastello, S. J., & Gregson, R. A. M. (2011). Nonlinear dynamical systems analysis for the behavioral sciences using real data. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
26. Guastello, S. J., Hyde, T., & Odak, M. (1998). Symbolic dynamics patterns of verbal exchange in a creative problem solving group. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 2, 35-58.
27. Guastello, S. J., Koopmans, M., & Pincus, D. (Eds.). (2011). Chaos and complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28. Guastello, S. J., & Liebovitch, L. S. (2009). Introduction to nonlinear dynamics and complexity. In S. J. Guastello, M. Koopmans, & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 1-40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Guastello, S. J., Peressini, A. F., & Bond, R. W. (2011). Orbital decomposition for ill-behaved event sequences: Transients and superordinate structures. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 15(4), 465-476.
30. Hagen, A. M., Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous notetaking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, S141-S157.
31. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215-1226.
32. Howe, M. J. (1970). Notetaking strategy, review and long-term retention of verbal information. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 285.
33. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2013). Mental models and cognitive change. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 131-138.
34. Juarrero, A. (2010). Intentions as complex dynamical attractors. In J. H. Aguilar & A. A. Buckareff (Eds.), Causing human actions: New perspectives on the causal theory of action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
36. Kaplan, A., Garner, J. K., & Semo, S. (2015). Teacher role-identity and motivation as a dynamic system. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
37. Katerndahl, D., & Parchman, M. (2013). Effects of family presence on the content and dynamics of the clinical encounter among diabetic patients. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 19, 1067-1072.
38. Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139-161.
39. Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y.-S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and selfmonitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 313-322.
40. Kelso, S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. London: MIT Press.
41. Kierwa, K. A. (1987). Note taking and review: The research and its implications. Journal of Instructional Science, 16, 233-249.
42. Kierwa, K. A., DuBois, N., Christensen, M., Kim, S., & Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Science, 18, 217-232.
43. Kintsch, W. (1991). A theory of discourse comprehension: Implications for a tutor for word algebra problems. In M. Carretera, M. Pope, R. Simmons, & J. I. Pozo (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (Vol. 3, pp. 235-353). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
44. Kobayashi, K. (2009). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 130-134.
45. Kunnen, E. S., & Bosma, H. A. (2000). Development of meaning making: A dynamic systems approach. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 57-82.
46. Lathrop, D., & Kostelich, E. J. (1989). Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic orbits. Physical Review A, 40, 4028-4031. Retrieved from http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~parg/mlrg/papers/periodic_orbit.pdf.
47. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22, 16-26.
48. Long, G. M. (2014). Positive effects of restricting student note-taking in a capstone psychology course: Reducing the demands of divided attention in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 340-344.
49. Lunkenheimer, E. S., & Dishion, T. J. (2009). Developmental psychopathology: Maladaptive and adaptive attractors in children’s close relationships. In S. J. Guastello, M. Koopmans, & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 282-306). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Maggioni, L., & Fox, E. (2009). Adolescents’ reading of multiple history texts: An interdisciplinary exploration of the relation between domain-specific reading and epistemic beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
51. Marcus, B., & Williams, S. (2008). Symbolic dynamics. Scholarpedia. Retrieved from http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Symbolic_dynamics Mathworks. (Version R2010a). Natick, MA: Mathworks.
52. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117-125.
56. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. University of California San Diego CHIP Report 99.
57. Peressini, A. F., & Guastello, S. J. (2010). Orbital decomposition: A short user’s guide to ORBDE v1.2. http://www.societyforchaostheory.org/tutorials/
58. Peressini, A. F., & Guastello, S. J. (2014). Orbital decomposition V2.4. Retrieved from http://www.societyforchaostheory.org/tutorials/#4
59. Peverly, S., Vekaria, P. C., & Garner, J. K. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 27, 1-30.
60. Pincus, D., Eberle, K., Walder, C. S., Kemp, A. S., Lenjav, M., & Sandman, C. A. (2014). The role of self-injury in behavioral flexibility and resilience. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 18(3), 277-296.
61. Pincus, D., & Guastello, S. J. (2005). Nonlinear dynamics and interpersonal correlated of verbal turn-taking patterns in a group therapy session. Small Group Research, 36, 635-677.
62. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
63. Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2004). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291-312.
64. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategy instruction: From basic research to classroom instructions. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265-287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bentam.
67. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 25, 279-294.
68. Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technology Journal, 27, 379-423.
69. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. New York: University of Illinois Press.
70. Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
71. Stanton, M., & Welsh, R. (2012). Systemic thinking in couple and family psychology research and practice. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1, 14-30.
72. Sundararajan, A. (2012). Shifting and moving: An introduction to dynamical systems. Retrieved from http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2012/REUPapers/Sundararajan.pdf
73. Tabrizian, M. (2010). Shifts as dynamical systems. Retrieved from http://math.berkely.edu/
74. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
75. Van Meter, P., & Firetto, C. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction: Learning through the construction of drawings. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 247-280). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
76. Winne, P. H. (2015). Comments, Vice President’s forum: diversity vis-à-vis individual differences: Pondering the implications for theory and research. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
77. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Winne, P. H., & Jameson-Noel, D. L. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551-572.
79. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulated learning: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
80. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183.
81. Zimmerman, B. J., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying: An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 63, 13-27.