A R TIC L E S Visual Literacy and Library Instruction: A Critical Analysis By Nerissa Nelson University Library Abstract This paper d iscusses the concept of visual literacy and its impl ications for librarians teaching information literacy components. The author concludes that, while visual teaching methods should be incorporated in l ibrary instruction , teach ing visual literacy competencies is most effectively done in connection with d isci­ pl ine-specific content and thus falls outside l ibrarians' role. Introduction In our fast-paced era of media bl ips and bytes, visual images and symbols have now more than ever an immediate and frequent presence in our culture. Technological ad­ vances resulting in new media types nave dynamically altered trad itional modes of communication . Choices for producing and consuming information are vast, and formats from standard text to graphical interfaces, d igitized images, streaming video and hyper­ media have created a complex and layered system of i nformation flow. I nformation is no longer bound by text or sim­ ple i llustrations since technological innova­ tions have created a rich visual culture, im­ pacting business, education and social envi­ ronments (New London Group, 1 994; Walker & Chaplin , 1 997). Making sense of visual im­ ages and symbols requires more than just passive observation, but rather a new compe­ tency - visual literacy - to understand , analyze and "read" the essence of these images (Abilock, 2003). "Read ing" visual images in this sense also requires "integrating other sensory experiences" according to the I nter­ national Visual Literacy Association ( IVLA) . It is qu ite clear that as technology becomes "obsolete, evolves and expands," the increas­ ingly intricate visual world demands a skill to interpret these messages beyond sheer ob­ servation (Walker & Chaplin , 1 997). Education Libraries Volume 27, No. 1 Summer 2004 Visual l iteracy is not necessarily a "new" con­ cept, but it has transformed into a more for­ malized area of study in both the K-1 2 envi­ ronment and higher education . From a theo­ retical perspective, visual images and sym­ bols have become so integrated and impor­ tant in our social structure and identity that understanding the effects of our image-rich world has resulted in a new field of study in academe: Visual Culture Studies (Walker & Chapl in , 1 997). On a more practical level , vis­ ual l iteracy has become part of the curriculum by virtue of technology-enhanced resources, thus expanding the range of visual teach ing tools with graph ics, videos or web sites being incorporated into classroom lectures and li­ brary i nstruction (Wiley & Hemmerich, 2003). While, trad itionally, l ibrarians have dealt pri­ marily with · text-based information, recent changes in technology have led to a gradual shift. With images and symbols playing an increasingly important role, and with educa­ tors calling for the development of visual l iter­ acy, librarians need to ask what their role should be in all of this. Just as various facets of literacy, such as information literacy, have been of concern to librarians, should l ibrarians now get involved with the newly emerging area of visual l iteracy, and what should be the nature of such involvement? While this ques­ tion raises a number of issues, the purpose here is to provide a broader perspective from 5 which to launch a discussion of the l ibrarian's role with respect to the increasing importance of visual literacy. Specifically, this article fo­ cuses on two questions: First, should l ibrari­ ans be involved in teaching visual l iteracy? Second, should librarians tailor instruction toward visual learning styles? What Is Visual Literacy? Attempts to define visual literacy in more depth are made d ifficult by the lack of an ac­ cepted definition among experts. While defini­ tions of visual l iteracy do exist in the l iterature, the meaning varies depending on the context in which it is grounded. One recent study attempted to arrive at a definition of visual l iteracy by surveying ex­ perts in the field (Bri l l , Kim & Branch , 2001 ). While the responses to the survey were not conclusive, they led the authors to suggest the following consensus defin ition . Visual lit­ eracy encompasses a . . . g roup of acquired competencies for inter­ preting and composing visible messages. A visually l iterate person is able to: (a) d iscriminate and make sense of visible objects as part of a visual acuity; (Q) cre­ ate static and dynamic visible objects ef­ fectively in a defined space; (c) compre­ hend and appreciate the visual testa­ ments of others; and (d) conjure objects in the mind's eye. (p . 6) Working from the premise that visual literacy is a group of acquired competencies, Eisenberg , Lowe and Spitzer (2004) briefly discuss visual literacy from a larger framework famil iar to the l ibrary profession - the re­ search agenda for library instruction and in­ formation literacy, published by the Associa­ tion of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000). The research agenda outlines research questions related to instruction in academic l ibraries. Based on the ideas of Moore and Dwyer (1994) and Wileman (1 980) , Eisenberg , et al , regard visual l iteracy as a core model comprised of three main con­ cepts: visual learn ing, visual thinking and vis­ ual communication. They further describe these three concepts as the abil ity to con­ struct meaning from visual experiences (visual learning), organize information based on the composition of images (visual thinking), and Education Libraries Volume 27, No. 1 Summer 2004 use symbols to express meaning (visual communication). Marcum (2002), a scholar in the l ibrary and information science field, takes a more far­ reaching view of visual literacy. He challenges · the library profession to move away from the " information-processing paradigm" and to consider a visual ecology system that he de­ fines as "a comprehensive and continuous participatory event, a universe of action , and a world of knowledge and learning rather than of information transfer" (p. 1 89). In simple terms, Marcum suggests the profession re­ think its current "text-based" phi losophy and move toward a new system that is more grounded in the visual and interactive technologies of today. It is clear from these few examples that visual l iteracy carries d ifferent mean ings depending on the contextual framework. Despite these variations, and for the purpose of this article, visual literacy in its broadest sense wil l be understood as the processes by which images are constructed , organized and expressed to communicate meaning, as well as the compe­ tencies associated with these processes. Be­ fore d iscussing whether librarians should be involved in visual literacy it is important to look at how competency in this area is taught. How Is Visual Literacy Taught? Teaching visual literacy goes beyond learning a specific set of ski l ls, but it is rather a social practice that looks at how images are created and communicated (Bamford , 2003). Images are forms of visual communication repre­ sented in any medium, such as fi lm , televi­ sion, advertising, digital images, graphic­ enhanced designs or photographs to name a few. Students develop visual l iteracy as they engage in the study of images or objects for their form, structure, symbols, cultural repre­ sentation and social interactions (Bamford; Messaris, 2001 ) . The impl ications of teaching visual literacy, as expressed by Bamford , in­ clude the development of critical thinking skills, understanding image and manipulation techniques, examining design principles, and analyzing embedded codes and conventions with in images. There are numerous examples of how visual l i teracy has been integrated into curriculum 6 models in both K-1 2 and higher education environments. Paul Messaris, a leader in the field of visual education , uses fi lm making to get students to th ink about how subjects and images are portrayed and if these representa­ tions are contrived, manipu lated or real. He finds th is technique effective in examining the process of visual literacy from both the con­ sumer and producer perspective. The impl ica­ tions for visual l iteracy, he says, become an active process where students " . . . move be­ yond the use of visual media as simple 'win­ dows on reality' to an actively oriented visual education" (Messaris, 2001 ). Another example of teaching visual l iteracy is George's (2002) composition class using "vis­ ual arguments" in place of the traditional writ­ ten paper. She assigns a "visual argument" based on course readings. Although the ar­ gument uses any form or medium decided upon by the student, such as a new book jacket, map, chart, web page, flyer, painting, collage or d iagram , the visual form sti l l re­ quires the elements of making and supporting a claim with evidence. One student, for exam­ ple, based her argument on the read ing of "King Leopold's Ghost. " She decided to redes­ ign Leopold's Congo Free State flag to .i llus­ trate how she interpreted what Europe really brought to Congo. Some colleagues ques­ tioned George's method that her "visual ar­ gument" assignment did not equal the same "weight" as a written paper. She contends that students are engaged in a "technology­ saturated and image-rich culture, and that questions of communication and composition absolutely include the visual , not as attendant to the verbal but as complex communication intricately related to the world around them" (p. 32). Should Librarians Teach Visual Literacy? I nstruction , both formal and informal , has al­ ways been a function of l ibrarians whether it is d irect or ind irect, within or outside the class­ room, a "one shot" session or a full credit­ course. Library orientation, bibl iographic in­ struction and information literacy are fre­ quently used terms to describe the teaching functions of librarians. While the fundamental aspects of these terms have been debated in the library l iterature, especially with regard to information literacy, the bottom l ine is that Education Libraries Volume 27, No. 1 Summer 2004 many of the practical functions within these models overlap - regardless of how the term has been "repackaged" in the profession. Despite the relative ease with which informa­ tion is now available onl ine, the complexity of technology makes l ibrary instruction far from obsolete. Interfaces change, databases ap­ pear (and sometimes d isappear), journals are d iscontinued or no longer available onl ine, and new meta-search faci l ities are introduced which sti l l do not cover all information sources. Students struggle to sift through this "stuff' trying to make sense of it all so that they can get the information needed for their paper, presentation or exercise. Serving as partners, supporters or collaborators with fac­ ulty, l ibrarians respond to this situation by teaching technical skills and evaluative com­ petencies in connection with course objectives and assignments. It is not uncommon for academic l ibrarians to teach semester long credit courses that focus on foundations of information l iteracy or l ibrary research methods. Librarians create instruc­ tional materials using the technology of the day, such as Web-based tutorials, subject specific Web directories, research tutorials, pathfinders or bibliograph ies. The design, im­ plementation and methodology of instruction vary depending on the nature of what needs to be accomplished. Typically, l ibrarians con­ centrate on the concepts and mechanics of identifying, searching, accessing and evaluat­ ing appropriate information util izing different technologies (Dewald , 1 999; ACRL, 2000). Among the characteristics that Dewald consi­ ders to be "good l ibrary instruction" is the l ink­ ing of library instruction with course- or as­ signment-related objectives and activities. In the same vein , McDonald (2004) argues that if i nstruction in information l iteracy is connected through a context tied to a discipl ine or a spe­ cific assignment, then the respective compe­ tencies are taught in isolation , and the instruc­ tion is ineffective. Plausible as this argument is for instruction in information literacy, does it is also apply to the teaching of visual l iteracy? If so, what does it mean for the l ibrarian's role? If information literacy should be tied to the content covered in students' classes and their respective assignments, then the call for such 7 connection should be considered equally val id with regard to the teaching of visual l iteracy. This statement does not imply, however, that librarians should get involved in the teaching of visual l iteracy. On the contrary, teachi ng visual literacy goes beyond the l ibrarian's role-for the following reason: un l ike the con­ cept of information l iteracy, the concept of visual literacy revolves around the content analysis of images, their meaning, not so much about the techn ical skills of finding them and their qual itative evaluation in terms of authenticity, currency, etc. Teaching in a dis­ cipline-specific context thus takes on different meanings for l ibrary literacy and visual l iter­ acy. For the former, it means teaching search and source-evaluation ski l ls ; for the latter, it means using images as information sources and making sense out of them by critically analyzing their meanings. While involvement in the former task is generally considered to be an essential aspect of l ibrarianship, in­ volvement i n the latter falls within the exclu­ sive domain of the subject instructor, not the l ibrarian . Teaching how images (such as a political poster dating back to the French Revolution) are constructed, organized or ex­ pressed to communicate meaning goes as much beyond the role of librarians as the teaching of any other discipl ine-specific con­ tent (such as Robespierre's concept of l ib­ erty). No one would , or should , expect l ibrari­ ans to take on this task. While the above argument arrives at the con­ clusion that l ibrarians should not teach d isci­ pl ine-specific content, the use of visual com­ ponents in l ibrary instruction is a different is­ sue to be addressed in the following section . Tailoring Instruction toward Visual Learning Styles The proliferation of technology-enhanced re­ sources has fundamentally changed instruc­ tion methods in many academic d iscipl ines. Technologies used in classrooms today, whether traditional , distance education or hy­ brid courses, range from standard applica­ tions, such as M icrosoft PowerPoint to more complex multimedia, such as streaming desk­ top video capture. More and more teachers now require students to use these tools i n connection with their assignments, papers or presentations. Education Libraries Volume 27, No. 1 Summer 2004 New technologies have created opportunities for new, innovative teaching methods that accommodate i ndividual learn ing styles and thus provide more flexibil ity in student learning (Tyckoson and Jacobson , 1 993). While the concept of "learning style" is a relatively old idea, it still bears much currency. Rita and Kenneth Dunn's ( 1 993) defin ition of learning style is how an individual concentrates, proc­ esses, internalizes and remembers academic content. Most recently, Denig (2004) picks up this defin ition and d iscusses the authors' 21 elements that model learning style prefer­ ences, including the perceptual element per­ taining to students who learn best by seeing complex material. The d iscussion of learning styles in the con­ text of the classroom, brick-and-mortar or vir­ tual , is typically tied to the idea of presenting class content in multiple formats in order to provide effective instruction to all students, no matter what their learning styles may be. For example, Wiley and Hemmerich (2003) and Dewald ( 1 999) emphasize the importance of utilizing multimedia in the classroom: By pro­ viding multiple representations of the same information, multimedia-based instruction can accommodate the needs of students with ver­ bal , visual or auditory learning styles . The au­ thors also describe specific types of informa­ tion , such as maps, charts and d iagrams that require visual representation in order to be understood . Focusing on information literacy, Brown, Murphy and Nanny (2003) argue that instruction must provide for visual and other learning style preferences in order to be effec­ tive. The recent ACRL research agenda reflects a greater emphasis on learning styles in l ibrary instruction than before (ACRL, 2000). Accord­ ing to Dalrymple (2002), who surveyed in­ struction l ibrarians to determine whether they were util izing learn ing style theory in their teaching, results had a mixed answer. The survey found that l ibrarians were generally aware of learni ng styles (visual and others), but that they were uncertain about how to adapt their instruction to the diverse learning styles in the classroom setting. Her study also found that l ibrarians typically use lecture-style formats and computer demonstrations of searching OPACs, databases and the Web, tai lored to course assignment objectives. Some of the respondents indicated that they 8 lacked ideas on how to incorporate other technologies outside the standard computer demonstration i nto the "one-shot" 50-minute instruction session . Despite this concern, most respondents were enthusiastic about experimenting with new technologies to ac­ commodate d iverse learn ing styles in the classroom. Dalrymple concluded that l ibrari­ ans, now more than ever, are focused on stu­ dent learn ing. Templeman-Kiuit and Ehrenberg (2003) pro­ vide a current example on how to meet visual learning preferences. Based on their experi­ ences at the Bobst Library at New York Un i­ versity (NYU), they recognized the need for better methods to reach distance learners and to enhance library instruction through a more visual mode. The authors wanted to create a "human form of onl ine instruction ." After a few trials and errors, they took an existing text­ based HTML tutorial, "How to find a book" and , using a product called Camtasia, created a streaming med ia component with voiceover narration. Once this was accomplished , they transformed other onl ine tutorials and experi­ mented with new technologies, such as Flash MX, to create higher qual ity images and en­ hanced interactivity for students. Judged by its d iscussion in the l iterature, the attention g iven to it with in the ACRL research agenda, Dalrymple's survey, as well as real­ world projects (of which the one at Bobst Li­ brary is just one example), it is clear that the issue of students' preferences for certain learning styles, and the need to tailor instruc­ tion to those, are on the radar screen of in­ struction l ibrarians. As Jacobson & Ignacio ( 1 997) point out, adapting to students' visual learning styles is not accomplished necessar­ ily through a prescribed method , but rather through a flexible approach that is more in­ tune to the individual development of stu­ dents. Ways in wh ich this is being practiced is evident in NYU's progressive effort to create innovative tutorials utilizing the most current technology to meet the needs of users with visual (and aud itory) learning styles (Temple­ man-Kiuit and Ehrenberg, 2003). Conclusion The purpose of this paper was to d iscuss whether l ibrarians should be involved in visual literacy, and, if so, what form this involvement Education Libraries Volume 27, No. 1 Summer 2004 should take. Teaching visual literacy - the processes by wh ich images are constructed , organized and expressed to communicate meaning - goes beyond the l ibrarian's role. Pertinent competencies are most effectively taught in connection with courses in subject­ specific d isciplines, such as history, physics, business , cultural studies etc. However, li­ brarians should continue to make ample use of visual teach ing methods, thereby accom­ modating their instruction to the visual learn­ ing style that, in the current age of multimedia technology, may work best for many, if not most, of the students. The discussion of "visual literacy" and its im­ plication for librarianship in this article is not meant to be exhaustive. Of future questions yet to be addressed, only two shall be men­ tioned here. First, are current trends in collec­ tion development adequate in light of the im­ portant role of images as information carriers? Second, how can the greater emphasis on visual teaching methods be balanced with the needs of those students who learn most effec­ tively by non-visual means-be it because of their "learning style" or because of a sensory (visual) impairment? References Abilock, D. (2003, November). A seven-power lens on 2 1 st Century literacy: Insti l l ing cross-discipl inary visual, news media, and information-literacy skil ls. Multimedia Schools, 10(6), 30-36. Association of College and Research Librar­ ies. (2000). Research agenda for library instruction and information literacy. Re­ trieved July 14 , 2004, from http:l/www .ala. orglala/acrlbucket/is/iscommittees/webpa ges/research/re searchagendalibrary.htm. Bamford, A. (2003). The visual literacy white paper. Adobe Systems Pty Ltd . , Australia. Retrieved September 9, 2004, from http://www .adobe. co. u k/ed ucation/pdf/ adobe_visual_literacy_ paper.pdf. Bri l l , J . , Kim, D . , & Branch, R. (2001 ). Visual l iteracy defined : The results of a Delphi study - can IVLA (operationally) define visual literacy? In R. Griffen, V. Williams & J. Lee (Eds.), Exploring the visual fu­ ture: art design, science and technology. Blacksburg , VA: The International Visual Literacy Association . 9 Brown, C . , Murphy, T. , & Nanny, M . (2003, November). Turning techno-savvy into i nfo-savvy: Authentically integrating in­ formation l iteracy into the college curricu­ lum. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(6), 386-399. ChanLin, L., & Chang, B. (2003, December). Web-based l ibrary instruction for promot­ ing information skil ls. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30( 4 ), 265-276. Dalrymple, C. (2002, May). Perceptions and practices of learning styles in l ibrary in­ struction. College & Research Libraries, 63(3), 261 -273. Denig, S. (2004, January). Multiple intel l igen­ ces and learning styles: Two complemen­ tary dimensions. Teachers College Re­ cord, 106(1 ), 96- 11 1 . Dewald, N . ( 1 999, January). Transporting good l ibrary instruction practices into the web environment: An analysis of onl ine tutorials. Journal of Academic Librarian­ ship, 25(1 ), 26-31 . Dunn, R . , & Dunn, K. ( 1 993). Teaching sec­ ondary students through their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Eisenberg, M . , Lowe, C. , & Spitzer, K . (2004). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age (2nd ed.) . Westport, CT: L ibraries Unl imited . George, D . (2002, September). From analysis to design: Visual communication in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 54(1 ), 1 1 -39. Grassian, E. (2004, May/June). Do they really do that? Librarians teaching outside the classroom . Change, 36(3), 22-27 . International Visual Literacy Association (n .d . ) . What is visual literacy? Retrieved August 28, 2004, from http://www.ivla.org/ org_what_vis_lit.htm#definition . Jacobson, F . , & Ignacio, E. ( 1 997, Spring). Teaching reflection: Information seeking and evaluation in a d igital l ibrary environ­ ment. Library Trends, 45(4 ), 77 1 -803. Marcum, J. (2002, Apri l) . Beyond visual cul­ ture: The challenge of visual ecology. Par- Education Libraries Volume 27, No. 1 Summer 2004 tal: Libraries and the Academy, 2(2), 1 89- 206. McDonald, J. (2004, July 14). Information l it­ eracy or literate information? MLA Forum, 3(2). Retrieved September 5, 2004, from http:l/www.mlaforum.orglvolume l l l/issue21 conf3 .html. Messaris, P . (2001, February). New literacies in action: Visual education . Reading online, 4(7). Retrieved September 9 , 2004, from http://www. Readingonl ine.orgl newliteracies/action/messaris/index. html . Moore, D .M . , & Dwyer, F .M . , (Eds.), ( 1 994). Visual literacy: A spectrum of visual/earn­ ing. Englewood Cliffs , NJ: Educational Technology Publications. New London Group. ( 1 996, Spring). A peda­ gogy of multil iteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1 ), 1 -28. New York University. (n .d.) . Bobst Library. Online Tutorials. Retrieved September 1 0 , 2004, from http://l ibrary.nyu .edu/research/ tutorials/book/. Tempelman-Kiuit, N . , & Ehrenberg, E. (2003). Library instruction and onl ine tutorials: Developing best practices for streaming desktop video capture. Fe/iciter, (2), 89- 90. Thibault, M., & Walbert, D . (2003, Septem­ ber). Reading images: an introduction to visual literacy. Retrieved September 4, 2004, from http://www.learninc.org/index. nsf/doc/vlintro0602?0penDocument. Tyckoson, D.A. , & Jacobson, T.E . ( 1 993, Spring). Technology instruction and learn­ ing styles. Education, 1 13(3), 356-360. Walker, J . , & Chapl in , S. ( 1 997). Visual cul­ ture: An introduction. New York: Man­ chester University Press. Wileman, R. ( 1 980). Exercises in visual think­ ing. New York: Hastings House. Wiley, J . , & Hemmerich, J .A. (2003). Learning from multimedia sources. In The encyclo­ pedia of education (2nd ed.) . (Vol . 4, pp. 1 493-1 497). New York: Macmil lan Refer­ ence. 1 0