Assessing Attitudes Indirectly Through Conceptual Metaphors of Size and Distance in an Interactive Software

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the research sample.

Gender	6^th grade		7^th grade		8^th grade		9^th grade		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Male	8	50	14	41	9	41	2	40	33	45
Female	8	50	17	59	13	59	3	60	41	55
Total	16	22	31	42	22	30	5	6	74	100

Figure 1. A school subject (“Mathematics”) in varying distances and sizes.

A matrix of six images depicting the subject “Mathematics”, positioned close (panels A and D), in the middle (panels B and E), and in the distance (panels C and F). The images in the left column show the subject whose size has been left at the default value (panels A, B, and C), and the images in the right column show the subject in its maximum size for a given distance (panels D, E, and F).

Table 2. Examples of statements and first- and second-order categories derive from them.

Statement examples	Examples of first-order categories	Examples of second-order categories
Distance: I put it somewhere in the middle because I just don’t understand everything we go through. It’s not so far away because the teacher is good, but it’s just not that easy.”	Does not understand everything. Good teacher. Subject is not easy.	Teacher Perception Mastery
Size: The subject is quite useful in real life. People on the internet communicate mainly in English, that’s why I’ve made it bigger. Even though I’m not happy with our teacher, how he teaches it, I like learning it.	Useful in real life. Not happy with the way it is taught. Likes learning it.	Usefulness Teacher Perception Liking

Table 3. Themes and their occurrence in response to the metaphor of Distance.

Themes	Frequencies		Examples of statements
	n	%
Importance (perceived value of the subject)	88	17	– It’s one of the most important subjects, whether it’s in elementary school, high school or college. – Very important (subject) to me because of admissions everywhere, so it’s important.
Usefulness (need, applicability, and usability in the “real world”)	65	13	– I think we will need math in our lives and to be able to do different math operations. – I’ll use some of the basics, some of the details I don’t really need.
Liking (enjoyment, emotional relationship)	327	63	– Like, sometimes it’s interesting what was going on, but it’s just not the best subject that I enjoy that much.
Teacher Perception (how likable the teacher and their methods are)	59	11	– This year, learning about history goes aside, we just have a teacher that probably doesn’t suit anybody in the classroom, so it’s kind of shifting around a lot. – Because the teacher is also very nice. She’s a lot of fun, too.
Difficulty (how demanding the subject is)	59	11	– Very difficult subject… and a few times I have to ask my classmates for help who understand it better and I get tangled up in it a lot.”
Mastery (personal aptitude and talent for the subject)	194	37	– I guess I got it from my mom, or I don’t know, I’m good at most of it too.

N = 518statements.

Table 4. Themes and their occurrence in response to the metaphor of Size.

Themes	Frequencies		Examples of statements
	n	%
Importance (perceived value of the subject)	171	33	– I’ll make the subject small because it’s not important to me. I’m not going to study it anymore.
Usefulness (need, applicability, and usability in the “real world”)	106	20	– I find English more useful than other subjects, that’s why it’s bigger. – Art class is no good to me. It should be even smaller, but it’s not possible.
Liking (liking, enjoyment, emotional relationship)	140	27	– So I’m going to make this subject a lot bigger because I enjoy it and look forward to the lessons.
Teacher Perception (likability of the teacher and their teaching methods)	40	8	– I want to make math bigger because of my teacher. She is really very nice and can teach difficult topics very well.
Difficulty (how demanding the subject is)	56	11	– Physics is very difficult. That’s why I’m enlarging it a lot.
Mastery (personal aptitude and talent for the subject)	75	15	– I’m said to have a talent for languages, and I enjoy conversations in a foreign language. I’m good at it, and that’s why I’m going to make the class bigger.

N = 518statements.

Figure 2. Graphical output of the research software.

Table 5. Inter-rater reliability for each theme and metaphor.

Theme	Distance metaphor	Size metaphor
	Fleiss’ Kappa [95% CI]	Fleiss’ Kappa [95% CI]
Importance	.68 [.63, .73]	.78 [.73, .83]
Usefulness	.66 [.61, .71]	.67 [.62, .72]
Liking	.79 [.74, .84]	.81 [.76, .86]
Teacher Perception	.89 [.84, .94]	.86 [.81, .91]
Difficulty	.69 [.64, .74]	.65 [.60, .70]
Mastery	.80 [.75, .85]	.74 [.69, .79]

Figure 3. Relative frequencies of themes related to Distance for each school subject.

Figure 4. Relative frequencies of themes related to Size for each school subject.

Table 6. Analysis of the metaphors’ propensity to elicit different themes using logistic regression.

Themes	Predicted probability		Odds ratio [95% CI]		Wald Z	p-value
	Size p [95% CI]	Distance p [95% CI]	Size/Distance	Distance/ Size
Importance	.33 [.31, .35]	.16 [.15, .18]	2.51 [2.11, 2.98]	0.40 [0.34, 0.48]	10.34	<.001
Usefulness	.20 [.18, .22]	.12 [.10, .13]	1.86 [1.51, 2.29]	0.54 [0.44, 0,66]	5.87	<.001
Liking	.26 [.24, .29]	.63 [.61, .66]	0.20 [0.17, 0.24]	4.89 [4.18, 5.72]	−19.87	<.001
Teacher	.07 [.06, .08]	.11 [.09, .13]	0.60 [0.46, 0.78]	1.67 [1.27, 2.18]	−3.73	<.001
Difficulty	.11 [.09, .12]	.11 [.09, .12]	1.00 [0.79, 1.27]	1.00 [0.79, 1.27]	0.03	.978
Mastery	.14 [.12, .15]	.37 [.35, .39]	0.27 [0.22, 0.32]	3.73 [3.10, 4.48]	−13.98	<.001

Figure 5. The relation between verbal evaluation and the values of Size and Distance.

Figure 6. Scatterplot of Distance and Size values with color based on verbal evaluation.

The mean values of distance and size (by group) are indicated with the “+” symbol (the black “+” indicates the total mean). The “Other” group includes cases where verbal evaluation was either mixed/neutral for both metaphors or negative for one metaphor and mixed/neutral for the other.