Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 110 Download : 29

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Understanding the experience and revealing the perception of users towards the products takes the attraction of many researchers, which increases the popularity of the “design thinking” for different research disciplines.  In order to serve the product to satisfy needs of target users more efficiently and improve the product and user interaction, the design of the product by means of research field, content, process, methodology has also gained importance in mathematics education. In this study, comprehensive literature research on the role of design in mathematics education and use of eye tracking technology is given in detail. It is suggested to create alternative design categories for a special user group as mathematically gifted students while achieving mathematical tasks related to the fraction concept. Five different models of mathematical tasks expressed as written symbols, manipulative models, oral language, picture and real-world situations were designed for mathematically gifted students whose differentiated characteristics and needs require to be searched. Since proposing effective and differentiated content compatible with their needs is crucial, their reactions through gaze behaviors towards different contents were proposed to be recorded with the use of eye tracking technology, which generates quantitative data. In addition to benefiting from the advantageous position of eye tracking technology in providing methodological efficiency for instructional design studies, the data regarding personal evaluations of the students as qualitative judgments were also suggested to be obtained from the participants simultaneously. This proposal highlights the importance of systematical understanding and revealing the hidden interests of gifted students. It also has a potential to provide an initial guide for both design and mathematics education researchers concerning how an optimum mathematical task should be designed and how eye tracking technology can generate a roadmap in the instructional process.

Keywords

Eye Tracking Technology Gifted Students Mathematics Education Product Design Decisions

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
İlhan, A. E., & Özdemir, D. (2025). A research proposal for mathematics education: Innovative design thinking using eye tracking technology. Journal on Mathematics Education, 16(3), 841–870. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v16i3.pp841-870
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., & Bakker, A. (2016). Making sense of movement in embodied design for mathematics learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0034-3
  2. Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2021). Addressing the needs of gifted students in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33(2), 173-187.
  3. Akkaş, E., & Tortop, H. S. (2015). Üstün yetenekliler eğitiminde farklılaştırma: temel kavramlar, modellerin karşılaştırılması ve öneriler. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 2(2), 31-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.18200/JGEDC.2015214250
  4. Albert, W., & Tedesco, D. (2010). Reliability of self-reported awareness measures based on eye tracking. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(2), 50-64. https://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/pdf/JUS_Albert_Tedesco_Feb2010.pdf
  5. Andrá, C., Lindström, P., Arzarello, F., Holmqvist, K., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2015). Reading mathematics representations: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 237-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9484-y
  6. Appelt, L. C. (2016). Designing for the elderly user: Internet safety training. University of Baltimore.
  7. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change?. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(6), 499-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3
  8. Armstrong, T. (2021). Designing differentiated educational content for gifted students. Gifted Education International, 37(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429420970193
  9. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. University of California Press.
  10. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Heo, N., & Dockery, L. (2013). High-ability students’ participation in specialized instructional delivery models: Variations by aptitude, grade, gender, and content area. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213479654
  11. Aygün, B. (2010). The needs analysis of the mathematics program for the gifted students attending lower secondary education schools. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
  12. Baykoç, N., Aydemir, D., & Uyaroğlu, B. (2014). Inequality in educational opportunities of gifted and talented children in Türkiye. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 1133-1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.566
  13. Beatty, J., & Kahneman, D. (1966). Pupillary changes in two memory tasks. Psychonomic Science, 5(10), 371-372. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328444
  14. Bense, M. (1969). Einführung in die Informations-Theoretische Ästhetik. Weimar.
  15. Berg, D. H., & McDonald, P. A. (2018). Differences in mathematical reasoning between typically achieving and gifted children. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(3), 281-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2018.1457034
  16. Bergstrom, J. R., & Schall, A. J. (2014). Eye Tracking in User Experience Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  17. Borovik, A. V., & Gardiner, A. (2006). Mathematics for the Curious. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Byeon, J. H., Oh, J. Y., & Kwon, Y. J. (2017). Gaze pattern differences during categorization of organisms between science gifted and general high school students. Information, 20(6B), 4365-4372.
  19. Carbon, C. C., Hutzler, F. & Minge, M. (2006). Innovativeness in design investigated by eye movements and pupillometry. Psychology Science, 48(2), 173-186.
  20. Chapman, O. (2013). Mathematical-task knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9234-7
  21. Chen, X. & Qiao, L. (2015). Applicable prospects of eye tracking technology in the research of landscape visual perception. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10(10), 111-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2015.10.10.12
  22. Choi, H.-D., Shin, W.-S., & Shin, D.-H. (2012). Differences in eye movement pattern during the classification between the gifted and general students in elementary schools. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(4), 501-512. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2015.34.1.142
  23. Coates, D. (2003). Watches Tell More Than Time. McGraw-Hill.
  24. Consort World research (2013). Eye tracking products-ET systems, ET software, & ET accessories. Retrieved from http://www.consortworld.com/et-products.html (02.11.2021).
  25. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
  26. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
  27. Darling-Hammond, L., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Building teacher capacity for success with standards. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (eds.), Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development that Matters (pp. 309-337). Teachers College Press.
  28. Desmet, P. M. A. (2008). Product emotion. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (eds.), Product Experience (pp. 379-397). Elsevier.
  29. Desmet, P. M. A. (2010). Three levels of product emotion. In C. Bouchard, A. Aussat, P. Levy, & T. Yamanaka (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research (pp.236-246). Arts et Métiers Paris Tech.
  30. Desmet, P. M. A. (2012). Faces of product pleasure: 25 positive emotions in human-product interactions. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 1-29. https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/1190/466
  31. Desmet, P., Overbeeke, K., & Tax, S. (2001). Designing products with added emotional value: Development and appllcation of an approach for research through design. The Design Journal, 4(1), 32-47. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069201789378496
  32. Dickson, B. (2017). Unlocking the potential of eye tracking technology. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/19/unlocking-the-potential-of-eye-tracking- technology/ (12.12.2022).
  33. Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(1), 7-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320102500102
  34. Dimitriadis, G. (2011). Mathematics education for gifted students: A network of people and resources. World Journal of Education, 1(2), 51-60.
  35. Du, P., & MacDonald, E. F. (2014). Eye-tracking data predict importance of product features and saliency of size change. Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(8), 081005. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4027387
  36. Epelboim, J., & Suppes, P. (2001). A model of eye movements and visual working memory during problem solving in geometry. Vision Research, 41(12), 1561-1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00256-X
  37. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
  38. Feuchter, M. D., & Preckel, F. (2022). Reducing boredom in gifted education—Evaluating the effects of full-time ability grouping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1477.
  39. Fıçıcı, H., & Siegle, D. (2008). The development of domain-specific creative potential in mathematics: Group and gender differences in a two-year longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 20(3), 297-307.
  40. Fong, J. (2012). The meaning of pupil dilation. Retrieved from https://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33563/title/The-Meaning-of-Pupil-Dilation/ (07.06.2021).
  41. Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 98-119). Cambridge University Press.
  42. Garand, R., Jackson, A., Marquart, N., Sapharas, L., & Vorac, D. (2009). The eye tracking system. Ohio State University, Team B.I.T. Report.
  43. Gavin, M. K., Chiu, M. M., & Peng, Y. (2021). Mathematics instruction for high-ability learners in mixed-ability classrooms: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 91(1), 79-117.
  44. Greenes, C. (1981). Giftedness in mathematics: A review of the research. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  45. Guan, Q. (2007). The activation and long-term memory of predictive inferences: The role of working memory constraint and text elaboration. The Florida State University.
  46. Guiping, C., Axu, H., Yonghong, L. & Hongzhi, Y. (2011). Review of linguistics understanding based on eye tracking system. Journal of Northwest University for Nationalities (Natural Science), 32(2), 49-55.
  47. Guo, F., Li, M., Hu, M., Li, F., & Lin, B. (2019). Distinguishing and quantifying the visual aesthetics of a product: An integrated approach of eye-tracking and EEG. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 71, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.02.006
  48. Guo, H., Cheng, H., Huang, Y., Liu, X., & Lu, X. (2016). Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in recommender interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(9), 710-721. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1198933
  49. Halszka, J., Holmqvist, K., & Gruber, H. (2017). Eye tracking in Educational Science: Theoretical frameworks and research agendas. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 10(1), 10-16910. http://dx.doi.org/10.16910/jemr.10.1.3
  50. Hammer, N., & ve Lengyel, S. (1991). Identifying semantic markers in design products: The use of eye movement recordings in industrial design. In Schmid, R. and Zambarbieri, D. (Eds.), Oculomotor Control and Cognitive Processes Normal and Pathological Aspects (pp. 445-455). Elsevier Science.
  51. Hartmann, M., Mast, F. W., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Spatial biases during mental arithmetic: Evidence from eye movements on a blank screen. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00012
  52. Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1960). Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science, 132(3423), 349-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.132.3423.349
  53. Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science, 143(3611), 1190-1192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.143.3611.1190
  54. Ho, C.-H., & Lu, Y.-N. (2014). Can pupil size be measured to assess design products? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(3), 436-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2014.01.009
  55. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press.
  56. Hou, G., & Lu, G. (2019). The influence of design proposal viewing strategy: design aesthetics and professional background. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 543-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9450-7
  57. Hudlicka, E. (1996) Requirements elicitation with indirect knowledge elicitation techniques: Comparison of three methods. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering (pp.4-11). Colorado Springs. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRE.1996.491424
  58. Ilhan, E., & Togay, A. (2020). Use of eye tracking technology in evaluating product images and optimal process decisions. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning, 8(4), 709-719. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1335770
  59. Ilhan, A. E., & Togay, A. (2023). Pursuit of methodology for data input related to taste in design: Using eye tracking technology. Displays, 76, 102335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2022.102335
  60. Ilhan, A.E., Sener, B., & Hacihabiboglu, H (2022). Improving sleep-wake behaviors using mobile app gamification. Entertainment Computing, 40(2022), 100454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2021.100454
  61. Jacob, R. J., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Commentary on Section 4-Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: ready to deliver the promises. The mind’s eye, 2(3), 573-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50031-1
  62. Jacobsen, T. (2006). Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo, 39(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2006.39.2.155
  63. Jang, H., Lee, Y., Lee, J. H., & Kim, Y. (2014). An eye-tracking study of learners' attention to feedback types in computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 283-297.
  64. Jiang, X., Shouqian, S., & Kejun, Z. (2007). Product image form optimization design based on genetical gorithm. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 43(4), 53-58. http://www.cjmenet.com.cn/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=7407
  65. Johnson, D. T. (2000). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
  66. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3
  67. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154(3756), 1583-1585. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.154.3756.1583
  68. Kahneman, D., Beatty, J., & Pollack, I. (1967). Perceptual deficit during a mental task. Science, 157(3785), 218–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.157.3785.218
  69. Kahneman, D., Tursky, B., Shapiro, D., & Crider, A. (1969). Pupillary, heart rate, and skin resistance changes during a mental task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(1p1), 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026952
  70. Keinonen, T. (1998). One-dimensional usability: Influence of usability on consumers' product preference. Publication series of the University of Art and Design.
  71. Kellaris, J. J., & Kent, R. J. (1993). An exploratory investigation of responses elicited by music varying in tempo, tonality, and texture. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(4), 381-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80068-X
  72. Khedler, A. B., Jraidi, I., & Frasson, C. (2018). Static and dynamic eye movement metrics for students' performance assessment. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0065-y
  73. Kim, N. (2006). A history of design theory in art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40(2), 12–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4140227
  74. Kjeldskov, J., & Skov, M. B. (2014). Was it worth the hassle?: Ten years of mobile HCI research discussions on lab and field evaluations. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Service, Mobile HCI 2014 (pp. 43-52). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.262839
  75. Klimecká, E. (2023). Advantages and disadvantages of being ‘gifted’: Perceptions of the label by gifted pupils. Research Papers in Education, 38(6), 902-923. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2022.2065523
  76. Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A powerful but neglected strategic tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(3), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb038044
  77. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. University of Chicago Press.
  78. Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience: A practitioner's guide to user research. Elsevier.
  79. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489-508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
  80. Leikin, R. (2021). When practice needs more research: The nature and nurture of mathematical giftedness. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(7), 1579-1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01276-9
  81. Leikowski, P., & Lev, M. (2007). Creative thinking, intelligence, and giftedness: A cross-cultural exploration. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 23-32.
  82. Lipps, T. (1906). Einfühlung und ästhetischer Genuß. Die Zukunft, 54(16), 100-114.
  83. Lobach, B. (1976). Industrial Design: Grundlagen der Industrieproduktgestaltung. Thiemig.
  84. Locher, P. J., Overbeeke, K., & Wensveen, S. (2010). Aesthetic interaction: A framework. Design Issues, 26(2), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/20749943
  85. Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). The SMPY’s longitudinal study of academically talented students: 20 years later. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 723-728.
  86. Marshall, B. H., Sareen, S., Springer, J. A. & Reid, T.N. (2014). Eye tracking data understanding for product representation studies. RIIT ’14 Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Research in Information Technology (pp. 3-8). Georgia, USA: ACM.
  87. Miller, M. (2017). What designers can learn from the new science of eye tracking. Retrieved from https://www.fastcodesign.com/90131416/eye-tracking-is-turning-design-into-a-science (25.10.2020).
  88. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2013). Mathematics curriculum for primary and secondary education. MoNE.
  89. Mofield, E. L. (2020). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in the regular classroom: Effective strategies for teachers. Routledge.
  90. Moshagen, M., & Thielsch, M. T. (2010). Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 68(10), 689-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.06.005
  91. Muldner, K., & Burleson, W. (2015). Utilizing sensor data to model students’ creativity in a digital environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.060
  92. Naschitzki, A. (2012). Eye tracking and design: All will be revealed. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/Optimal.Usability/eye-tracking-design-12609778 (06.08.2025)
  93. National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards. Prufrock Press.
  94. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. NCTM.
  95. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM.
  96. Nayak, B. K., & Karmakar, S. (2019). A review of eye tracking studies related to visual aesthetic experience: A bottom-up approach. In A. Chakrabarti (Ed.), Research into Design for a Connected World. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (pp. 391- 403). Springer.
  97. Ngiamsunthorn, P. S. (2020). Promoting creative thinking for gifted students in undergraduate mathematics. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 13-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v5i1.9675
  98. Nikolov, A. (2017). Design principle: Aesthetics –the power of beauty in design. Retrieved from https://uxdesign.cc/design-principle-aesthetics-af926f8f86fe (06.08.2025)
  99. Obersteiner, A., & Tumpek, C. (2016). Measuring fraction comparison strategies with eye-tracking. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48, 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0742-z
  100. Özdemir, D. A., & Işıksal-Bostan, M. (2021). Mathematically gifted students’ differentiated needs: what kind of support do they need?. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1658817
  101. Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 77-107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- psych-120710-100504
  102. Papanek, V. (1984). Design for the Real World. Van Nostrand.
  103. Paruchuri, J. K. (2012). Eye-tracking study of user behavior in Google search results page. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2(6), 1027-1031.
  104. Pascoe, M. (2008). Optimizing SfN poster design using eye-tracking software. Retrieved from http://mikepascoe.blogspot.com.tr/2008/11/optimizing-sfn-poster-design-using-eye.html (06.08.2025)
  105. Pei, H., Huang, X., & Ding, M. (2022). Image visualization: Dynamic and static images generate users’ visual cognitive experience using eye-tracking technology. Displays, 73, 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2022.102175
  106. Reid, T. N., MacDonald, E. F., & Du, P. (2012). Impact of product design representation on customer judgment with associated eye gaze patterns. In Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2012 (pp. 749-762). Chicago, USA.
  107. Renzulli, J. S. (2011). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821
  108. Rindova, V. P., & Petkova, A. P. (2007). When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organization science, 18(2), 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0233
  109. Rojas, J., Cañizares, J. C. M., Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., & Muniz, G. (2020). An eye-tracking project in industrial design education: A case study for engaging in the research process. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 127-132). Porto, Portugal.
  110. Ryser, G. R., & Johnsen, S. K. (1998). Test of mathematical abilities for gifted students. Pro-ed.
  111. Sağlam, Z., & Yılmaz, F. G. K. (2021). Eğitim araştırmalarında göz izleme: araştırmalardaki eğilimlerin belirlenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(3), 1621-1649. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1623666
  112. Sajka, M., & Rosiek, R. (2015). Solving a problem by students with different mathematical abilities: A comparative study using eye-tracking. In CERME 9-Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1752-1758). Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education; ERME. https://hal.science/hal-01288030/document
  113. Salvucci, D. D., & Goldberg, J. H. (2000). Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (pp. 71-78). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/355017.355028
  114. Scheiter, K., & Van Gog, T. (2009). Introduction: Using eye tracking in applied research to study and stimulate the processing of information from multi-representational sources. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1209–1214. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1524
  115. Schindler, A., Jäger, A., & Neyer, F. J. (2016). Eye-tracking analysis: Using gaze-plot analysis to investigate memory for emotional faces. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0617-2
  116. Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. (2017). Eye-Tracking and its Domain-Specific Interpretation. A Stimulated Recall Study on Eye Movements in Geometrical Tasks. In Proceedings of PME 41, 4, (pp. 153-160). PME.
  117. Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2018). Eye-tracking for studying mathematical difficulties: Also in inclusive settings. In Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-42) (pp. 115-122). Umeå, Sweden.
  118. Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2019). Domain-specific interpretation of eye tracking data: Towards a refined use of the eye-mind hypothesis for the field of geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(1), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-9878-z
  119. Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2020). Students’ creative process in mathematics: Insights from eye-tracking-stimulated recall interview on students’ work on multiple solution tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1565-1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10033-0
  120. Shelley, J. (2017). The concept of the aesthetic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/aesthetic-concept/ (06.08.2025).
  121. Sinclair, N., & Bruce, C. (2015). Designing for digital learning. Springer.
  122. Singer, F. M., Sheffield, L. J., Freiman, V., & Brandl, M. (2016). Research on and activities for mathematically gifted students. Springer Nature.
  123. Škrabánková, J., & Trnová, E. (2015). Researching students gifted in science using the method of eye tracking. e-Pedagogium, 15(4), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.5507/epd.2015.048
  124. Škrabánková, J., Vaněk, J., & Šafránková, J. (2019). Visual and verbal information processing in foreign language learning: Evidence from eye-tracking. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 1-25.
  125. Sriraman, B. (2003). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations: The problem-solving experiences of four gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(3), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2003-425
  126. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics?. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20-36. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-389
  127. Sriraman, B., Haavold, P., & Lee, K. (2013). Creativity in mathematics and mathematics education: An overview. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 149-155.
  128. Tijms, H. (2012). Understanding probability. Cambridge University Press.
  129. Tobiipro.com. (2023). Products. https://www.tobiipro.com/product-listing/
  130. Tonbuloğlu, İ. (2010). Göz izleme ve video kaydı yöntemleri ile ilköğretim yedinci sınıf matematik dersi öğretim yazılımlarının kullanışlılığının değerlendirilmesi. Doctoral Dissertation. Marmara Universitesi.
  131. Trna, J. (2014). Mathematics education for the gifted: A critical review. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(7), 1005-1017.
  132. Tunalı, I. (1998). Aesthetics (5th Edition). Remzi Bookstore.
  133. Tunalı, I. (2009). Design philosophy. Feed Publication.
  134. Türkoğlu, H. (2014). Dinamik geometri yazılımı kullanarak göz izleme yöntemi ile alan bağımsız bilişsel stile sahip matematik öğretmen adaylarının problem çözme becerilerinin öğrenme stilleri açısından incelenmesi. Master's Thesis. Başkent Universitesi.
  135. Van de Walle, J. (2004). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
  136. Van de Walle, J., Karp, K., Bay-Williams, J. M., Brass, A., Bentley, B., Ferguson, S., ... & Wilkie, K. (2019). Primary and Middle Years Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally. Pearson Australia.
  137. Wang, Q., Ma, D., Chen, H., Ye, X., & Xu, Q. (2020). Effects of background complexity on consumer visual processing: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Business Research, 111, 270-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.018
  138. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(1), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.159
  139. Winteridge, D. (1989). A Handbook for Primary Mathematics Coordinators. Paul Chapman Publishing.
  140. Xiao, L., & Wang, S. (2023). Mobile marketing interface layout attributes that affect user aesthetic preference: An eye-tracking study. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35(2), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2021-0477