tommus wrote:Maybe. If you had a series of images that are meant to convey the idea of 'emitted light', then yes; this image could be part of the series. But by itself, it primarily conveys other meanings, such as volcano, lava, erupt, etc. If you had just the image with the caption 'emit' or 'emitted light', and you expected a person who did not know those words to instantly realise that the image was conveying the concept of light being emitted from the hot lava, then no. That is not the main impression that the image conveys. Better to use a light bulb, or just the sun, or something hot with arrows coming out of it.
Thank you so much. Yes it is part of a series since it is a video material. The word
emit frequently appears in the video, sometimes with corresponding images sometimes not. I aim to analyse the number of times the verbal visual contiguity occurs as part of my research project, to test this contiguity effect on learning. There are instances, such as these few seconds:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BFpzFtbGefgOo1W_4ip2RRvk-0dERaYh/view?usp=sharing where the series of images PERFECTLY correspond to the meaning of the words. There are times where the meaning is less obvious, however, I intend to consider all contributing visuals regardless of whether the image had as well other meaning candidates next to our visual referent.
I hope my point makes sense? As in the viva, the examiners will question these decisions