EVALUATIVE CUES IN FACT-OPINION DISTINCTION: BEHAVIORAL CHANGE AND LOCALIZED EYE-TRACKING EVIDENCE FOLLOWING A PEDAGOGICAL INTERVENTIO

Abstract

Distinguishing facts from opinions requires recognizing linguistic cues of evaluation and judgment and integrating them into the overall meaning of an utterance. This study evaluated the effects of a four-workshop pedagogical intervention grounded in Active Linguistic Learning among 6th- and 9th-grade students, comparing Experimental and Control groups before and after the intervention (N = 48; 1,920 observations). The behavioral hypothesis was supported: the mixed-effects logistic model for accuracy revealed a significant Group × Time × Type interaction (p < 0.001), and the disadvantage for opinion statements, present in Control-Pre, Control-Post, and Experimental-Pre, was no longer detected in Experimental-Post (Opinion: 77.5%; Fact: 76.7%). The eye-tracking hypothesis, formulated specifically for the critical region targeted during the workshops, was also supported: only in Experimental-Post did opinions elicit longer Total Fixation Duration (1930 ms vs. 1530 ms; p = 0.016) and more Fixations (5.49 vs. 4.25; p = 0.007) within the Area of Interest corresponding to the critical lexical cue. In an additional analysis of the factorial design, the Group × Time × Type interactions were not significant for the eye-tracking measures; this does not contradict the regional hypothesis, but it cautions against extending the localized contrast to a claim of differential longitudinal change between groups. Taken together, the findings support the behavioral and eye-tracking predictions at the levels for which they were formulated and indicate that the intervention was associated both with improved classification and with a localized change in processing of the relevant linguistic cue.