Page 103 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 103
perception, infer ence, and understanding in visual argumentation (and beyond)
visual materials. Whether they look for other (non-visual) cues in order to
help them interpret what they see, and construct (some) meaning.
The same test would be administered to them after 2 rounds of
eye-tracking, while during these two rounds the experimental subjects
would be asked what they have seen (what the visual was about, what was
its ‘message’; in their view, of course) after each visual.
Round 1:
Participants 1-5 see visuals 1-5 from which all verbal elements
were eliminated.
Participants 6-10 see visuals 1-5 as they are, with verbal elements.
Round 2 (reverse of round 1):
Participants 1-5 see visuals 6-10 as they are, with verbal elements.
Participants 6-10 see visuals 6-10 from which verbal elements
were eliminated.
0 hypothesis: participants would process ‘pure’ visuals and ‘in-
fected’ visuals in the same way.
1 hypothesis: participants would look for potential verbal (or other
non-visual) elements in order to help them interpret the visuals.
Unfortunately, for the lack of funds, the experiment had to be post-
poned in the last minute, so I had to find a more or less suitable replacement.
I opted for an experimental survey study, involving a pilot questionnaire.
This pilot questionnaire, titled A Short Questionnaire on Understanding
the Visuals (Drawings, Pictures, Photographs ...) comprised three well-
known visuals from Leo Groarke’s work on VA, namely:
103
visual materials. Whether they look for other (non-visual) cues in order to
help them interpret what they see, and construct (some) meaning.
The same test would be administered to them after 2 rounds of
eye-tracking, while during these two rounds the experimental subjects
would be asked what they have seen (what the visual was about, what was
its ‘message’; in their view, of course) after each visual.
Round 1:
Participants 1-5 see visuals 1-5 from which all verbal elements
were eliminated.
Participants 6-10 see visuals 1-5 as they are, with verbal elements.
Round 2 (reverse of round 1):
Participants 1-5 see visuals 6-10 as they are, with verbal elements.
Participants 6-10 see visuals 6-10 from which verbal elements
were eliminated.
0 hypothesis: participants would process ‘pure’ visuals and ‘in-
fected’ visuals in the same way.
1 hypothesis: participants would look for potential verbal (or other
non-visual) elements in order to help them interpret the visuals.
Unfortunately, for the lack of funds, the experiment had to be post-
poned in the last minute, so I had to find a more or less suitable replacement.
I opted for an experimental survey study, involving a pilot questionnaire.
This pilot questionnaire, titled A Short Questionnaire on Understanding
the Visuals (Drawings, Pictures, Photographs ...) comprised three well-
known visuals from Leo Groarke’s work on VA, namely:
103
