Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Attention and Mind-Wandering: How Long Do Elementary School Students Stay Engaged during Science Class?

초등학생이 과학 수업 시간에 주의집중과 Mind Wandering 시간은?

  • Received : 2025.01.14
  • Accepted : 2025.01.19
  • Published : 2025.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to provide an in-depth understanding of learning engagement and attention levels by analyzing the attention and mind-wandering (MW) states of elementary school students during science classes. The study included six 5th-grade students, utilizing an eye tracker and machine learning (Object Detection) technology to collect and quantitatively analyze gaze data. The analysis included extracting fixation time on learning tasks, MW time, and their proportions, as well as examining changes in attention and MW over time. The results revealed that the average attention ratio during class was 26.62%, while MW accounted for 20.04%. Attention ratio gradually increased during the initial phase of the class, peaking at 34.07% approximately the 17th minute, before declining. Conversely, MW reached its highest level (31.04%) immediately after the class began and then gradually decreased. These findings suggest that attention and MW among elementary school students fluctuate over time and are influenced by working memory capacity and learning environments. This study addresses the limitations of previous observation-based studies by introducing an objective and quantitative methodology, providing a more accurate understanding of students' learning behaviors. The findings highlight the need for instructional design and educational intervention strategies to enhance learning focus among elementary school students.

이 연구의 목적은 초등학생들의 과학 수업 중 주의집중 및 딴생각(Mind Wandering, MW) 상태를 분석함으로써 학습 참여와 집중도에 대한 심층적인 이해를 제공하는 것이다. 연구 방법으로는 초등학교 5학년 학생 6명을 대상으로 Eye Tracker와 기계 학습(Object Detection) 기술을 활용하여 시선 데이터를 수집하고, 이를 정량적으로 분석하였다. 수업 중 학습 과제에 대한 시선 고정 시간, MW 시간 및 비율을 추출하고, 시간 경과에 따른 주의집중 및 MW의 변화를 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 수업 중 주의집중 비율은 26.62%, MW은 20.04%로 분석되었다. 주의집중 비율은 수업 초반 점진적으로 증가하여 약 17분 시점에 최대치(34.07%)에 도달한 후 감소하였고, MW는 수업 시작 직후 최고치(31.04%)를 기록한 후 점차 감소하는 경향을 보였다. 이러한 결과는 초등학생들의 주의집중 및 MW가 시간 경과에 따라 변화하며, 이는 작업 기억 용량과 학습 환경의 영향을 받을 수 있음을 시사한다. 이 연구는 기존 관찰 기반 연구가 가지는 한계를 보완하여 객관적이고 정량적인 방법론을 제시함으로써, 학생들의 학습 행동을 보다 정확히 이해할 수 있는 기초를 마련하였다는 점에서 의의가 있으며, 연구 결과는 초등학생들의 학습 집중도 향상을 위한 교수 설계 및 교육적 개입 전략 개발의 필요성을 강조한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 노세영, 권승혁, 권용주(2020). 생명과학 VR 콘텐츠의 언어정보 제시 방식에 따른 주의집중 분석-시선추적 연구. 생물교육, 48(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2020.48.1.38
  2. 신원섭, 신동훈(2016). 실제 과학수업에서 시선추적과 주의력 검사를 통한 초등학생들의 주의 특성 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 36(4), 705-715. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.4.0705
  3. 이미진, 이광호(2015). 시선 추적기를 통해 본, 4학년 학생들의 방정식에 대한 관계적 사고 형성: 웹기반 저울을 중심으로. 학교수학, 17(3), 391-405.
  4. 이민하, 김성운, 양일호(2023). 지구과학 동영상 강의 학습 중 동영상 유형에 따른 초등 예비교사의 Mind Wandering. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 23(3), 783-795.
  5. Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1117-1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446024
  6. Bradbury, N. A. (2016). Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more?. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(4), 509-513. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00109.2016
  7. Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (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. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100409p
  8. Campbell, E. (2014). Can 'eye'tell if you are paying attention? The use of mobile eye-trackers to measure academic engagement in the primary-school classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of York).
  9. Castellhano, M. S., Mack, M. L., & Henderson, J. M. (2009). Viewing task influences eye movement control during active scene perception. Journal of Vision, 9(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.3.6
  10. Fox, K., Spreng, R. N., Ellamil, M., Andrews-Hanna, J., & Christoff, K. (2015). The wandering brain: Meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of mind-wandering and related spontaneous thought processes. Neuroimage, 111, 611-621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.039
  11. Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1978). Note‐taking: A critical review. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 15(3), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/0033039780150305
  12. Hutt, S., Krasich, K., Mills, C., Bosch, N., White, S., Brockmole, J. R., & D'Mello, S. K. (2019). Automated gaze-based mind wandering detection during computerized learning in classrooms. User-Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, 29, 821-867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09228-5
  13. Jang, D., Yang, I., & Kim, S. (2020). Detecting mind-wandering from eye movement and oculomotor data during learning video lecture. Education Sciences, 10(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030051
  14. Johnstone, A. H., & Percival, F. (1976). Attention breaks in lectures. Education in Chemistry, 13(2), 49-50.
  15. Kam, J. W. Y., Dao, E., Farley, J., Fitzpatrick, K., Smallwood, J., Schooler, J. W., & Handy, T. C. (2011). Slow fluctuations in attentional control of sensory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 460-470. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21443
  16. Keulers, E. H., & Jonkman, L. M. (2019). Mind wandering in children: Examining task-unrelated thoughts in computerized tasks and a classroom lesson, and the association with different executive functions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 276-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.11.013
  17. Le Cunff, A. L., Giampietro, V., & Dommett, E. (2024). Neurodiversity and cognitive load in online learning: A focus group study. Plos one, 19(4), e0301932. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301932
  18. Manor, B. R., & Gordon, E. (2003). Defining the temporal threshold for ocular fixation in free-viewing visuocognitive tasks. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 128(1-2), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0270(03)00151-1
  19. Martínez-Pérez, V., Andreu, A., Sandoval-Lentisco, A., Tortajada, M., Palmero, L. B., Castillo, A., & Fuentes, L. J. (2023). Vigilance decrement and mind-wandering in sustained attention tasks: Two sides of the same coin?. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17, 1122406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1122406
  20. Mason, M. F., Tatkow, E. P., & Macrae, C. N. (2005). The look of love: Gaze shifts and person perception. Psychological Science, 16(3), 236-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00809.x
  21. McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S. A., & Stallings, M. C. (2013). Relations between preschool attention span-persistence and age 25 educational outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008
  22. Meier, J., de Jong, B., van Montfort, D. P., Verdonschot, A., van Wermeskerken, M., & van Gog, T. (2023). Do social cues in instructional videos affect attention allocation, perceived cognitive load, and learning outcomes under different visual complexity conditions?. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(4), 1339-1353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12803
  23. Meng, M., Wei, J., & Wu, J. (2022). Learning multipart attention neural network for zero-shot classification. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 14, 414-423. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2020.3044313
  24. Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., Desmaison, A., Köpf, A., Yang, E., DeVito, Z., Raison, M., Tejani, A., Chilamkurthy, S., Steiner, B., Fang, L., Bai, J., & Chintala, S. (2019). Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 8024-8035.
  25. Risko, E. F., Laidlaw, K. E. W., Freeth, M., Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Social attention with real versus reel stimuli: Toward and empirical approach to concerns about ecological validity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(143), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00143
  26. Rosengrant, D., Hearrington, D., & O'Brien, J. (2021). Investigating student sustained attention in a guided inquiry lecture course using an eye tracker. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09540-2
  27. Rosengrant, D., Hearrington, D., Alvarado, K., & Keeble, D. (2012, February). Following student gaze patterns in physical science lectures. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1413, No. 1, pp. 323-326). American Institute of Physics.
  28. Rothkopf, C. A., Ballard, D. H., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2007). Task and context determine where you look. Journal of Vision, 7(14), 1-20.
  29. Seli, P., Wammes, J., Risko, D., & Smilek, E. (2016). On the relation between motivation and retention in educational contexts: The role of intentional and unintentional mind wandering. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1280-1287. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0979-0
  30. She, L., Wang, Z., Tao, X., & Lai, L. (2024). The impact of color cues on the learning performance in video lectures. Behavioral Sciences, 14(7), 560. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14070560
  31. Smallwood, J. (2013). Penetrating the fog of the decoupled mind: The effects of visual salience in the sustained Attention to response task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology – Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Experimentale, 67(1), 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030760
  32. Smallwood, J., and Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 946-958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946
  33. Smallwood, J., Baracaia, S. F., Lowe, M., & Obonsawin, M. (2003). Task unrelated thought whilst encoding information. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 452-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00018-7
  34. Szpunar, K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 6313-6317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221764110
  35. Was, C. A., Hollis, R. B., & Dunlosky, J. (2019). Do students understand the detrimental effects of Mind Wandering during online learning? Computers & Education, 135, 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.020
  36. Xu, H., Zhang, J., Sun, H., Qi, M., & Kong, J. (2023). Analyzing students' attention by gaze tracking and object detection in classroom teaching. Data Technologies and Applications, 57, 643-667. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-09-2021-0236
  37. Zarantonello, L., Schiff, S., Amodio, P., & Bisiacchi, P. (2020). The effect of age, educational level, gender and cognitive reserve on visuospatial working memory performance across adult life span. Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition, 27, 302-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2019.1608900
  38. Zhang, H., Miller, K. F., Sun, X., & Cortina, K. S. (2020). Wandering eyes : Eye movements during mind‐wandering in video lectures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 449-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3632
  39. Zhang, Z., & Rosenberg, M. D. (2024). Assessing the impact of attention fluctuations on statistical learning. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 86(4), 1086-1107. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02805-2