Instructional Illustrations & Graphical Devices: Designer’s Intentions & Readers’

InterpretationsElizabeth Boling

Kennon SmithTheodore Frick

Indiana University

Malinda EccariusUniversity of Nebraska Lincoln

c 2004 DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Illustrations are widely used in textbooksº Illustrations are widely used in instructional

materials (Evans, Watson, and Willows,1987; Pettersson, 2002), constituting some 30 – 60% of page space in junior high texts and up to 80% of page space in elementary texts.

º Pictorial images have demonstrated potentially beneficial effects in a broad range of settings, and for a variety of types of learning (Anglin, Towers & Levie, 1996).

Graphical devices are used in many of instructional illustrations to extend the meaning of the pictorial image. In some cases the student must interpret the device in the way the designer of the image intended in order to complete a learning task successfully.

Accurate interpretation of instructional illustrations is not a given.º Despite what appears to largely be a cross-

cultural ability to recognize objects depicted in pictures (Kennedy, 1994; Sless, 1981), the visual content of an illustration is frequently a vehicle used to communicate a more complex meaning or intention.

º Beyond their ability to present a visual representation of a given object, visual illustrations do not constitute a universal language.

º To what extent do various populations interpret the meaning of simple illustrations including graphical devices consistently with the meaning intended by the designer of the illustrations?

º When interpretations are not consistent with the intention of the designer, what are the ways in which respondents interpret the meanings of these illustrations?

Research questions

Pilot Studyº 96 college students at a large Midwestern

university completed a paper-based survey containing sixteen illustration items.

º For each item, each participant wrote a short (usually one sentence) response, indicating what they believed the illustration to mean.

º Based on this pilot study, the images were redrawn for consistency, and a 2nd version of the survey was produced without graphical devices in order to collect comparison data.

Survey items

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

path of prior motion expression (happy, excited)

communication / source of communication

physical change (sick, dead)

Examples from a Vietnamese text for learning English

property of motion (fast)

Zwier, L. (2003). English for everyday conversation and activities.

Examples from a Vietnamese text for learning English

property of communication(electronic)

Zwier, L. (2003). English for everyday conversation and activities.

Examples from a Vietnamese text for learning English

Zwier, L. (2003). English for everyday conversation and activities.

communication

Expression (dismay, unhappiness)

Examples from a Vietnamese text for learning English

Zwier, L. (2003). English for everyday conversation and activities.

communication

communication

motion

Examples from a Vietnamese text for learning English

Zwier, L. (2003). English for everyday conversation and activities.

motion

Examples from a Vietnamese text for learning English

Zwier, L. (2003). English for everyday conversation and activities.

motion

motion &path ofmotion

Survey populationsSurveys with devices

Surveys without devices

US 3rd graders 38 25US 6th graders 46 39US 10th graders 26 28US college students

34 39

Malay college students

50 54

US teachers of the deaf & hard of hearing

47 45

Totals 241 230

CodingMatches the designer’s intention

1

Does not match the designer’s intention

0

There’s a lizard = 0Dead lizard = 1

There’s a lizard = 0Dead lizard = 1

Resultsº People trained on the coding scheme agree

very consistently in their coding.

º The mean of the Kappa values (simple percentage agreement corrected for chance agreement) is .89, with a standard deviation of .15

º Surveys returned in languages other than English were coded by native speakers of those languages.

Frequency analysis3rd gradeN=38

6th gradeN=46

10thgradeN=26

US collegeN=34

TeachersN=47

MalayN=50

bunny 0.87 0.83 0.85 0.74 0.98 0.56flower 0.13 0.28 0.19 0.38 0.47 0.34car 0.58 0.74 0.85 0.74 0.72 0.72gift 0.18 0.44 0.38 0.24 0.43 0.52running guy

0.13 0.26 0.38 0.21 0.45 0.10

hat 0.40 0.56 0.65 0.82 0.85 0.66baseball 0.50 0.59 0.62 0.56 0.72 0.22talking 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.94 1.00 0.84sleep/cook

0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

no running

0.79 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94

signing 0.58 0.67 0.81 0.71 0.89 0.38transform 0.71 0.89 0.81 0.65 0.47 0.18TV 0.40 0.61 0.69 0.76 0.83 0.52looking 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.94 0.64dog 0.90 0.83 0.88 0.82 0.94 0.58lizard 0.63 0.80 0.81 0.68 0.53 0.42

Frequencies for all populations by image, with graphical devices

Frequency analysis3rd gradeN=38

6th gradeN=46

10thgradeN=26

US collegeN=34

TeachersN=47

MalayN=50

bunny 0.80 0.85 0.86 0.77 0.96 0.44flower 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00car 0.16 0.36 0.18 0.13 0.24 0.26gift 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04running guy

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

hat 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.15baseball 0.36 0.46 0.79 0.62 0.69 0.13talking 0.40 0.49 0.75 0.82 0.87 0.54sleep/cook

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

no running

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

signing 0.52 0.72 0.61 0.80 0.96 0.57transform 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00TV 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.33 0.18looking 0.04 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.13dog 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.04lizard 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.05 0.09 0.18

Frequencies for all populations by image, without graphical devices

Results of frequency analysisº Graphical devices do make a difference

in the way that respondents interpret the illustrations: º Respondents who did not see the devices

answered consistently with designers’ intentions infrequently except for the images with redundant cues to meaning (bunny, talking, fast car, looking, sign language)

º 2 out of 3 who see the devices match the designer’s intended meaning; 1 out of 5 who do not see the devices match the designer’s intended meaning

º Respondents do not interpret meanings as consistently as designers might want or expect them to: º Only two images are interpreted correctly at

80% or above across populations (no running, verbal communication - two people talking)

º 10th graders interpreted 9 of 16 pictures consistently with the designers’ intentions at 80% or above; teachers of the deaf interpreted 8 out of 16 pictures this way

º In all other populations fewer than half the pictures are interpreted correctly at 80% or above

Results of frequency analysis

Comparative analysis

º Because the data violate the homogeneity of variance assumption, standard ANOVA procedures could not be used to compare how different groups responded to any particular image.

º Therefore, a z-test procedure was used to compare the frequencies with which groups interpreted given images consistently with the designer’s intention.

z-test comparisonsº For each image, we made pairwise

comparisons with an overall alpha level of .05

º For each image, four pairwise comparisons were calculated. Therefore, the overall alpha level of .05 was divided by 4, resulting in an alpha of .0125 for each individual comparison.

º This process is conservative, and minimizes the probability of committing type 1 errors (finding differences between groups simply by chance).

group frequency

3rd graders 0.3910th graders 0.69Teachers 0.83US college 0.76Malay college 0.44

-2.431 (nsd)

-0.705 (nsd)

3.172 (sd)

-3.390 (sd)

Sample comparative analysis - item 13

designer’s intended meaningelectronic speech

t-test values (equal variance not assumed)

3rd grade & 10th grade students

3rd grade & US college students

US college & Malay college students

US college & Teachers of deaf

0.244 1.404 0.736 -3.055-0.630 -2.478 0.391 -0.765-2.460 -1.399 0.153 0.117-1.723 -0.524 -2.772 -1.833-2.258 -0.829 1.285 -2.371-2.081 -4.114 1.725 -0.325-0.906 -0.493 3.235 -1.5140.261 0.668 2.239 -1.4361.000 1.000 ****** ******

-3.141 -3.141 1.769 ******-2.022 -1.118 3.093 -2.054-0.896 0.568 4.686 1.612-2.431 -3.390 3.172 -0.705-0.576 -1.469 3.216 -0.3990.124 0.854 2.515 -1.492-1.575 -0.395 2.381 1.317

Comparative analysisº The greatest number of significant differences

were found between the U.S. college students and the Malay college students.

º Few differences were found between U.S. college students and U.S. teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing, and few differences were found between U.S. 3rd grade and U.S. 10th grade students.

º U.S. college students are more similar in their performance to U.S. 3rd graders than to Malay college students.

º The data to date suggest that developmental factors make less difference in interpreting images than do culture and language differences. (In this case, the designer of the images was from the U.S.)

U.S. college students – all responses, with and without devices

Qualitative analysis

U.S. 3rd graders – all responses, with and without devices

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysisº Using the constant comparison method to sort all

responses made by US college students, we have identified three major groupings of answers.

1 … form of the response all answers from all respondents – those who saw the graphical devices and those who did not

2 … interpretation of the device

answers from respondents who saw the devices but did not match the intended meaning

3 … interpretation of the image

Answers from respondents who did not see the devices and did not match the intended meaning

FindingsForm of the response (all responses)

code definition of the code example

NR no response ---

N naming lizard

D description The lizard layed there

eN embellished narrative The lizard got hit by a car, and died.

Ne narrative element I am a lizard

C commentary I have a pet lizard.

FindingsInterpreting the device (images with devices; answers do no match the designer’s

intention)

code definition of the code exampleD ascribes a meaning to the

device without reference to the relationship between the device and the rest of the image

The wind is blowing.

R interprets the device with a different relationship to the image than intended by the designer

The flower is being pushed by wind

/D interprets the image in a way that would be possible if the device were not present

The flower is wilting

/M matches the interpretation of the device but not the intended meaning of the illustration

The flower is leaning the wrong way.

code definition of the code exampleM matches the intention

of the designer without the device present

A rabbit is jumping.

N names or describes the noun

a rabbit

C interpreting a characteristic of the image with a different result than intended

The rabbit is falling.

/C unclear cue or interpretation

There he goes.

FindingsInterpreting the image (images without devices; answers do no match the designer’s

intention)

Findingsº Respondents seeing the images without devices

are 5 times more likely than those who see the devices to give a descriptive response. The devices make a qualitative difference in the form of the responses.

º Respondents whose interpretations do not match those of the designer give interpretations that are related to the devices. They appear to notice and use the devices in making their interpretations rather than ignoring the devices or not noticing them. Designers cannot assume that people will ignore graphical devices that they do not understand.

Limitations of the studyº Images are simple and viewed outside the

learning context.

º Investigators do not have access to the respondents’ reasoning process for giving the answers they do.

º Images are not categorized by type, so within-subject analysis is not possible at this time.

An expanded version and double-checked version of this study has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Visual Literacy. Please do not reproduce or circulate data or text from this presentation.

Note (02/28/05):