Content uploaded by Maria D. Avgerinou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria D. Avgerinou on Nov 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
28 TechTrends • March/April 2009 Volume 53, Number
Welcome to the
“Bain d’ Images” Era!
Today, the pervasiveness of visual mass media
is abundantly obvious to even the most casual
observer. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we
live in an era of visual culture, the so-called “bain
d’ images” (image bath), which influences enor-
mously our perception of self and the surrounding
world, our attitudes, beliefs, values, and general
life-style. Serving a variety of neither necessarily
transparent nor always well-meant purposes, the
images that continuously inundate our environ-
ment, be it private or public, come in different
forms and through several channels of visual com-
munication. e almost ubiquitous TV set is not
the only one to blame. Equally responsible for this
flood of visual messages are the Internet and new
information and communication technologies as
well as film and advertising industries.
Mirzoeff argues (1998) that the visual culture
defines and delimits our post-modern present in
that “the … culture that we call postmodernism is
best imagined and understood visually, just as the
nineteenth century was classically represented in
the newspaper and the novel” (p. 5). He goes on
to argue that postmodernism is “the crisis caused
by modernism and modern culture confronting
the failure of its own strategy of visualising” (p. 4).
In other words, although a significant intellectual
shift has occurred concerning the notion of repre-
sentation that once characterized modernism, the
existing text-oriented means to interpret represen-
tation have not themselves changed. As a conse-
quence, this post-modern present has emerged,
necessitating new ways of interpretation for not
only the world-as-a-text has been challenged by
the world-as-a-picture, but also deconstructing
and understanding the world in purely linguistic
terms is neither satisfactory nor adequate any lon-
ger.
For the majority of people, however, being
constantly bombarded by images does not nec-
essarily lead to a conscious recognition of this
phenomenon. Surprisingly enough, it can have a
rather counterproductive effect. Indeed, the ‘does
a fish know it is wet’ seems an alarmingly common
symptom of most people’s unsuspected immunity
against the epidemic visuality of contemporary
expressions of culture. On the other hand, being
conscious of the phenomenon of visual culture
does not necessarily entail thorough comprehen-
sion of, or facility to analyze it. In this author’s
view, being merely aware or completely unaware
of the incontestable hegemony of visual culture,
seem to amount to the same danger: that is, one
carrying on living by the erroneous assumption
that what has long been known as “print culture”
still rules the domains of human thought, atti-
tude, and emotion, and still dictates the form of
their expression. Clearly, if this is currently the
case, the visual culture cognoscenti are then pre-
sented with a strong ethical issue, but also a mis-
sion to establish visual environments for guided
learning in order to formally train and empower
people visually.
One last yet crucial point to raise at this junc-
ture is that the current generation of children and
young people are very familiar with the expres-
sions of our visual culture due to spending more
Re-Viewing Visual Literacy in the
“Bain d’ Images” Era
By Maria D. Avgerinou
“How far can this empirical, unguided venture
guarantee that young people are not partial
and passive receivers of visual messages?”
28 TechTrends • March/April 2009 Volume 53, Number
Volume 53, Number 2 TechTrends • March/April 2009 29
time watching TV programs and interacting with
their computer stations than attending school. Yet,
as Felten rightly points out: “Living in an image-
rich world…does not mean students (or faculty
and administrators) naturally possess sophisticated
visual literacy skills, just as continually listening to
an iPod does not teach a person to critically ana-
lyze or create music” (2008, p. 60). Considine de-
velops a similar argument by recognizing the irony
(his word) of young people being both creators
and consumers of messages but who nevertheless
“are not at the same time skilled in understanding
the codes, conventions, values or consequences of
those messages” (2008, p.65).
Consequently, how far can this empirical, un-
guided venture guarantee that young people are not
partial and passive receivers of visual messages; that
they are able to make a critical selection between
the necessary and the unnecessary; that they can
recognize the different functions (i.e., to inform,
to persuade, to instruct, and to entertain) of visual
media and appreciate that in some instances, these
functions are combined; and that they do distin-
guish superficial, glamorous, and pseudo-sophisti-
cated messages from the truly meaningful ones?
The Rear View Window:
Visual Literacy (VL) Denitions
Despite the fact that “e definition of VL has
been an elusive goal since the early days” of the In-
ternational Visual Literacy Association “(and even
before that)” (IVLA, 1997, p. 4), a multitude of
definitions for the concept and the associated skills
has arisen from each and every theoretical and ap-
plied perspective originating from the foundations
of the field, and at the same time defining and
shaping its eclectic nature and scope. Most notably,
Fransecky and Debes (1972) asserted that VL is
“the group of vision competencies a human being
can develop by seeing and at the same time having
and integrating other sensory experiences. e de-
velopment of these competencies is fundamental
to normal human learning” (IVLA, 2004). When
developed, they enable a visually literate person to
discriminate and interpret the visual actions, ob-
jects, and/or symbols, natural or man-made, that
are [encountered] in [the] environment. rough
the creative use of these competencies, [we are]
able to communicate with others. rough the ap-
preciative use of these competencies, [we are] able
to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of vi-
sual communications (IVLA, 1997, p. 7).
According to Ausburn and Ausburn, VL can
be defined as a group of skills which enable an
individual to understand and use visuals for in-
tentionally communicating with others (1978,
p. 291); while Braden and Hortin defined VL as
“the ability to understand and use images, includ-
ing the ability to think, learn, and express oneself
in terms of images” (1982, p. 169). Avgerinou
(2001a, 2001b, 2003) identified the most signifi-
cant points of convergence among VL theorists:
•A visual language exists.
•Visual language parallels verbal language.
•VL is a cognitive ability but also draws on the
affective domain.
•e terms “ability,” “skill,” and “competency”
have been invariably and interchangeably used
to describe VL.
•e VL skills have been specified as (a) to read/
decode/interpret visual statements, and (b) to
write/encode/create visual statements.
•e VL skills are (a) learnable, (b) teachable, (c)
capable of development and improvement.
•e VL skills are not isolated from other sen-
sory skills.
•Visual communication, visual thinking, and vi-
sual learning are inextricably linked to VL.
•VL has accepted and incorporated theoretical
contributions from other disciplines.
•VL’s main focus is intentional communication
in an instructional context.
rough a series of empirical studies aiming
at the refinement and validation of the VL Index
(Avgerinou & Ericson, 1999; Avgerinou, 2001a,
2001b), the same researcher concluded that “in
the context of human, intentional visual commu-
nication, visual literacy refers to a group of largely
acquired abilities, i.e., the abilities to understand
(read), and to use (write) images, as well as to
think and learn in terms of images” (Avgerinou,
2003, p. 36). Furthermore, she identified and de-
lineated (2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2007) eleven VL
competencies:
1. Knowledge of Visual Vocabulary: knowledge of
the basic components (i.e., point, line, shape,
form, space, texture, light, color, motion) of
visual language.
2. Knowledge of Visual Conventions: knowledge
of visual signs and symbols, and their socially
agreed meanings (within the western culture).
3. Visual inking: e ability to turn informa-
tion of all types into pictures, graphics, or forms
that help communicate the information.
4. Visualization: the process by which a visual im-
age is formed.
5. (Verbo-)Visual Reasoning: Coherent and log-
ical thinking that is carried out primarily by
means of images.
6. Critical Viewing: Applying critical thinking
skills to visuals.
7. Visual Discrimination: e ability to perceive
differences between two or more visual stimuli.
8. Visual Reconstruction: e ability to recon-
struct a partially occluded visual message in
its original form.
30 TechTrends • March/April 2009 Volume 53, Number
9. (Sensitivity to) Visual Association: e ability
to link visual images that display a unifying
theme. Also: (Sensitivity to) Verbo-Visual As-
sociation: e ability to link verbal messages
and their visual representations (and vice ver-
sa) to enhance meaning.
10. Reconstructing Meaning: e ability to visualize
and verbally (or visually) reconstruct the mean-
ing of a visual message solely on the evidence of
given information which is incomplete.
11.Constructing Meaning: e ability to con-
struct meaning for a given visual message on
the evidence of any given visual (and perhaps
verbal) information.
It should then follow that a person who has re-
ceived some type of formal training on VL and has
developed the above skills would be considered as
visually literate and thus capable of successfully han-
dling those demands of today’s world that pertain
directly or indirectly to VL. Although this might
have been the case in the past, when it comes to
the 21st century, the era of digital information and
proliferation of visual media, the aforementioned
VL skills find themselves in pressing need of recon-
sideration (Avgerinou, 2008). If we concur with
Begotray’s statement that “incredibly affordable ac-
cess to information technology has provided new
possibilities for developing visual literacy” (2002,
p. 6), we should therefore be aware of the fact that
technological developments have a profile altering
effect on the role of VL. As McInnish and Wright
point out, the evidence of the ever-changing role
of VL is provided by “the growing number of ap-
plications used to express its concepts” (2005, p. 3).
Burmark reports that according to newspaper sur-
veys “print material had an average of 13 seconds
in which to capture attention; thresholds of interest
had to be reached quickly, and the first, most criti-
cal threshold was visual interest” (2002, p. 5). Of
course, similar thresholds apply to electronic and
digital media such as TV, films, the Internet, etc.
ose thresholds keep being redefined by the quali-
ties and needs of the Net Generation, the digital
natives (Prensky, 2001).
The New Digital Landscape
Mindset and Natives
We are indeed moving at a very fast pace from
print to digital! Toledo (2007) explains that in the
20th century the dominant approach to education
focused on helping students acquire knowledge and
develop cognitive skills that could be deployed later
in appropriate situations. at approach to educa-
tion worked well in a relatively stable, slowly chang-
ing world in which careers typically lasted a lifetime.
However, this is not case of the 21st century. Accord-
ing to Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan (2008):
Our world today is about connecting the digi-
tal dots. e challenge is in dealing with the
complexity—the dots are multidimensional of
varying sizes and colors, continuously chang-
ing, and linked to other, as yet unimagined
dots. Nonetheless, to successfully connect the
dots at any level in cyberspace means we must
be literate, both digitally and visually (p. 14).
If we accept that the world is evolving and
changing at an increasing pace (Brown & Adler,
2008) and through multidimensional trajecto-
ries, and if the students themselves have changed
(Solomon & Schrum, 2007), then shouldn’t we be
redefining our curricula to better serve the needs
associated with the new status quo?
In what ways has the world mentality change?
Oblinger (2003) put forth the following attributes
of the information-age mindset:
• Computers are no longer technology.
• e Internet is better than TV.
• Reality is no longer real.
• Doing is more important than knowing.
• Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than
logic.
• Multitasking is a way of life.
• Typing is preferred to handwriting.
• Staying connected is essential.
• ere is zero tolerance for delay.
• Consumer and creator are blurring.
e Business and Higher Education Forum
(2005) stated that workers of the 21st Century
must have science and mathematics skills, creativ-
ity, information and communication technolo-
gies (ICT) skills, and the ability to solve complex
problems. Jenkins (2007) expanded the definition
of the 21st century skills to include:
• Play: e capacity to experiment with one’s sur-
roundings as a form of problem solving.
• Performance: e ability to adopt alternative
identities for the purpose of improvisation and
discovery.
• Simulation: e ability to interpret and construct
dynamic models of real-world processes.
• Appropriation: e ability to meaningfully
sample and remix media content.
• Multitasking: e ability to scan one’s environ-
ment and shift focus as needed to salient details.
• Distributed Cognition: e ability to interact
meaningfully with tools that expand mental ca-
pacities.
• Collective Intelligence: e ability to pool
knowledge and compare notes with others to-
ward a common goal.
• Judgment: e ability to evaluate the reliability
and credibility of different information sources.
• Trans-media Navigation: e ability to follow
the flow of stories and information across mul-
tiple modalities.
30 TechTrends • March/April 2009 Volume 53, Number
Volume 53, Number 2 TechTrends • March/April 2009 31
• Networking: e ability to search, synthesize,
and disseminate information.
• Negotiation: e ability to travel across diverse
communities, discerning and respecting mul-
tiple perspectives, and grasping and following
alternative norms.
At the same time, the nature of information
has changed (Jakes & Brennan, 2006), and it is
now described by a new set of characteristics: In-
formation is digital, networked, overwhelming,
immediate, manipulatable, participatory, and vi-
sual. e epitome of the information as defined
in our era are Web 2.0 applications (see Figure
1) such as social networking in multi-user virtual
environments and distributed communities (e.g.,
Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Second Life, Flickr),
blogs, wikis, visual journalism, e-documentaries,
digital photography (iMovie, digitalstoryteller.org,
Pinnacle Studio, MovieMaker 2), etc.
Brown & Adler (2008) maintain that the par-
ticipatory media of Web 2.0 have changed the very
nature of learning from the Cartesian view (where
knowledge was perceived as “substance” that peda-
gogy would transmit) to the social view of learning
(“we participate therefore we are”).
[Web 2.0] has blurred the line between produc-
ers and consumers of content and has shifted
attention from access to information toward
access to other people. …Indeed, the Web 2.0
is creating a new kind of participatory medium
that is ideal for supporting multiple modes of
learning (Brown & Adler, 2008, p. 18).
The Re-View Window: Visual
Literacy in the New Digital
Landscape
e need to re-view and re-conceptualize VL
within the 21st century’s digital landscape, comple-
mentary mindset, and skills has become more than
critical. Some researchers even go as far as advocat-
ing for an emerging Digital Visual Literacy (DVL)
concept (and discipline), defined as the ability “both
to create and understand certain types of informa-
tion, in this case visual information created with a
computer” (Spalter & vanDam, 2008, p. 94). As-
serting that, despite certain overlaps in both theory
and practice, DVL qualitatively differs from other
literacies (e.g. multimedia literacy or screen literacy)
because of its focus on the visual, Spalter and van-
Dam (2008) further describe DVL as the ability to:
• Critically evaluate digital visual materials (two-
dimensional, three-dimensional (3D), static,
and moving).
• Make decisions on the basis of digital visual rep-
resentations of data and ideas.
• Use computers to create effective visual commu-
nications.
Whether we concur with the DVL neologism
and argument, we still need to extend and ex-
pand the VL skills to embrace the needs of the
digital learner, and prepare them successfully for
the work force as we know it today. According to
Learning Point Associates (2007), students can
interpret, use, and create images and video us-
ing both conventional and 21st century media
in ways that advance thinking, decision making,
communication, and learning. e same research-
ers also propose an expanded list of skills that stu-
dents who are visually literate today should pos-
sess. According to that list, students should:
• Have working knowledge of visuals produced
or displayed through electronic media.
• Understand basic elements of visual design,
technique, and media.
• Be aware of emotional, psychological, physio-
logical, and cognitive influences in perceptions
of visuals.
• Comprehend representational, explanatory, ab-
stract, and symbolic images.
•Apply Knowledge of Visuals in Electronic Me-
dia.
•Be informed viewers, critics, and consumers of
visual information.
•Be knowledgeable designers, composers, and
producers of visual information.
•Be effective visual communicators.
•Be expressive, innovative visual thinkers and
successful problem solvers.
In an attempt to identify educational applica-
tions related to the aforementioned skills, Metros
(as cited in Bleed, 2006) provides the following
examples of VL infusion into today’s school cur-
riculum:
Learning outcomes stating that students will
be able to:
Figure 1: Web 2.0 Mind Map (Angermeier, 2005). Used with permission of
Wikimedia Commons.
32 TechTrends • March/April 2009 Volume 53, Number
• Identify their learning styles.
• Comprehend the meaning of VL in the context
of information literacy.
• Create graphic representations of data, infor-
mation, knowledge, and wisdom (charts, maps,
concept maps, & storyboards).
• Use digital camera, iMovie, or equivalent, and
other presentation and multimedia software to
create a short movie.
• Provide classmates with constructive face-to-
face and online feedback.
Although several scholars (Kellner, 1998;
Kress, 2003; Gee, 2004) rightly point out
that a multitude of literacies
(such as print, visual, aural,
media, computer, cultural,
social, and eco-literacy) is
necessary to survive the
daily challenges of the 21st
century life, VL seems to
be among the most critical
ones. Indeed, VL has been
identified as the essential
literacy by the Partnership
for 21st Century Skills. With the development of
Web 2.0, it is particularly important that VL be
brought into new teaching methods via teacher
training (Begotray, 2002); but also that schools
focus on helping students acquire the skills neces-
sary to navigate, evaluate, and communicate with
visual information. Jakes (2007) reminds us that
students will create content, including visual con-
tent, with or without schools. Successful schools
will take advantage of this interest and the tech-
nological mastery of today’s student, and will seek
methodologies and opportunities for incorporat-
ing VL instruction into the everyday curriculum.
It is therefore timely and critical to begin a sys-
tematic dialogue toward revisiting and revamping
VL’s definition, scope, purposes, skills, and ap-
plications so that connections can be established
between the evolving definition(s) of VL and
minimum related competencies recommended
by associations and educational agencies.
Conclusions
So far, this author has advanced the view that
the world is currently on the threshold of a new
status quo—the hegemony of the image. Yet, this
seems a mixed blessing, for people, and especially
young people, are not equipped with the neces-
sary critical viewing and thinking skills to survive
it. Nevertheless, this unfortunate situation can and
should be altered. To achieve this aim, we need to
use our most powerful weapon, that is, the concept
of VL. As Clark and Clark pointed out:
Children can learn to make out a great deal in
the field of vision. What we select and look at
in this field of vision is what for the individual
becomes reality. ey can learn that reality is
governed by our visual literacy. Children can
learn that whatever we make of it, we are in-
clined to make it what we want it to be. We are
not only bringing to the field of vision what we
already know and are, but we are also selecting
just what of that field we want to look at, and
while we are looking at it, tending to make it
just what we want it to be (1976, pp. 32-3).
e need for VL training has become more
than understandable and self-evident. Some years
ago, VL skills were considered as students’ fu-
ture needs. Today, that future is our present: e
communication and information revolution has
brought about a rather imperialistic in nature, vi-
sual culture. ose “future” needs are already here,
undoubtedly imperative; moreover, they cannot
be fulfilled solely on what the verbal-oriented, left-
brained schooling and society has to offer (Pink,
2006). For instance, it is more than obvious that
the way the mind is conditioned to think in the
verbal-oriented, left-brained school which has sys-
tematically promoted linear, logical, recall-based
thinking, has failed to address the full potential
of such important skills as creative thinking and
problem solving. us, educators have to face the
demand for VL training more rigorously than in
the past. ey have to start taking systematic steps
towards the direction of introducing the life-skill
of VL to their teaching.
Let us also highlight the importance of chang-
ing the current perception as to what learning is,
and of what it should be composed. Although VL
is without doubt capable of addressing efficiently
and effectively most current learning issues, VL
training will not assume the position it deserves
unless a more holistic view of learning is adopted.
Educators need to recognize that all teaching and
learning experiences involve communication and
that communication cannot any longer be limited
to spoken or written word. In other words, “there
is more to read in our society than just print”
(Considine, 1987, p. 640). is leads us to an ex-
panded and inclusive view of the very notion of
literacy which, combining verbal and visual text
via a constantly evolving array of new technolo-
gies, results in what Kress (2003) advances as mul-
timodality, or multiple modes of representation,
and Gee refers to as “multimodal principle,” that
is, “meaning and knowledge are built up through
various modalities (images, texts, symbols, interac-
tions, abstract design, sound, etc.), not just words”
(2004, p. 210).
“VL has been
identied as the
essential literacy by
the Partnership for
21st Century Skills.”
32 TechTrends • March/April 2009 Volume 53, Number
Volume 53, Number 2 TechTrends • March/April 2009 33
erefore, it is our narrow, outdated
(perhaps out of fear of experimenting
with the “unknown”) perception of
what should constitute learning and lit-
eracy that also needs to be altered radi-
cally. Otherwise, this perception will
continue undermining any attempt to
alter VL’s currently marginalized posi-
tion, and strongly establish its status
in the school curricula. In the same
vein, Felten emphasizes that “in our
rapidly changing world, visual literacy,
whether conceptualized as a distinct set
of capacities or as part of a larger mul-
timodal literacy, should be recognized
among the fundamental goals of a lib-
eral education” (2008, p. 60).
Ausburn and Ausburn’s (1978, p.
295) list of potential benefits of devel-
oping VL are just as pertinent in the
21st century:
• Increase in all kinds of verbal skills
• Improved self-expression and order-
ing of ideas
• Increase in student motivation and
interest in subjects of all types and at
all levels
• “Reaching” students not being reached
in traditional ways. Students such as
the educationally disadvantaged, the
truant, the socially underprivileged,
the emotionally disturbed, the intel-
lectually handicapped but also the
gifted, the ethnic and bilinguals, the
dyslexic, the deaf, those with speech
pathology problems- all respond and
have been helped in terms of both in-
terest and achievement
• Improved image of self and relation-
ship to the world
• Improved self-reliance, indepen-
dence, and confidence
Last but not least, this author wish-
es to emphasize that the development
of VL will also result in increasing the
students’ ability to better comprehend,
thus better cope and interact with to-
day’s world. To be more precise, devel-
oping VL should be viewed as an in-
dispensable part of the lifelong learning
agenda if indeed education is concerned
with preparing students to become in-
dependent and flexible learners; with
an understanding of the diverse range
of market demands, as well as a will-
ingness to equally foster and develop
all key skills associated with those de-
mands.
Maria D. Avgerinou is an assistant professor
at the school of education, DePaul University,
teaching courses in educational research, hu-
man development, and educational technology,
and directing the center for educational tech-
nology and excellence in e-learning, teaching
and research. Her research interests, publica-
tions, and professional presentations focus on
visual literacy (denition, and assessment of
skills), online and blended learning, and action
research in teacher education. Among other
professional aliations and activities, she is the
40th president of the International Visual Liter-
acy Association (IVLA), and a Board Member
of AECT’s Distance Learning Division.
References
Angermeier, M. (2005). Web 2.0 mind map.
Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Web_2.0_
Map.svg
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Vi-
sual literacy: Background, theory and prac-
tice. Programmed Learning & Educational
Technology, 15(4), 291-297.
Avgerinou, M. D. (2008). Visual literacy 2.0.
In Proceedings of World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3587-
3591). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).
Avgerinou, M.D. (2007). Developing a visual
literacy index: Methodological issues &
concerns. In R.E. Griffin, B. M.D. Avger-
inou, & J. Giesen (Eds.) History, commu-
nity, & culture: Celebrating tradition &
transforming our future (pp. 31-37). Lo-
retto, PA: IVLA.
Avgerinou, M. D. (2003). A mad-tea party no-
more: Revisiting the visual literacy defini-
tion problem. In R. E. Griffin, V. S. Wil-
liams, & L. Jung (Eds.) Turning Trees (pp.
29-41). Loretto, PA: IVLA.
Avgerinou, M. (2001a). Visual literacy: Anat-
omy and diagnosis. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. e University of Bath, UK.
British Library Documentation System.
Avgerinou, M. (2001b). Towards A visual litera-
cy index. In R. E. Griffin, V. S. Williams, &
L. Jung (Eds.) Exploring the visual future:
Art design, science & technology (pp. 17-
26). Loretto, PA: IVLA.
Avgerinou, M., & Ericson, J. (1999). Testing
visual literacy: Some progress with research?
In R. E. Griffin, W. J., Gibbs, & B. Wieg-
mann (Eds.), Visual literacy in an informa-
tion age (pp. 21-26). Loretto, PA: IVLA.
Begotray, D. (2002). Visual literacy across
middle school curriculum: A Canadian per-
spective. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Confer-
ence, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bleed, R. (2005). Visual literacy in higher edu-
cation. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from
http://www. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/
ELI4001.pdf
Braden, R. A. & Hortin, J. A. (1982). Identify-
ing the theoretical foundations of visual lit-
eracy. Journal of Visual/Verbal Languaging,
2(2), 37-51.
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008, January/Feb-
ruary). Minds on fire: Open education, the
long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE
Review, 43(1), 16-32. Retrieved Febru-
ary 10, 2008, from http://connect.edu-
cause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/
MindsonFireOpenEducationt/
45823?time=1206929786
Burmark, L. (2002). Visual Literacy: Learn to see,
see to learn. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Clark, E. D., & Clark, M. P. (1976, March).
e theoretical context of visual literacy:
Understanding the nature of two types of
knowledge. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Conference on Visual Literacy, Nash-
ville, Tennessee.
Considine, D. (2008). Born 2 B wired. Journal
of Media Literacy, 1 & 2, 59-67.
Considine, D. M. (1987). Visual literacy and
the curriculum: More to it than meets the
eye. Language Arts, 64(6), 634-640.
Felten, P. (2008, November/December). Visual
literacy. Change: e Magazine of Higher
Learning, 60-64.
Fransecky, R. B., & Debes, J. L. (1972). Visual
literacy: A way to learn – A way to teach.
Washington, DC: Association for Educa-
tional Communications and Technology.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to
teach us about learning and literacy. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
IVLA (International Visual Literacy Associa-
tion) (2004). Bylaws. Retrieved December
26, 2008, from http://www.ivla.org/pdf_
files/ivla_bylaws_05.pdf
IVLA (International Visual Literacy Associa-
tion) (1997). A guide for IVLA board mem-
bers and officers. Prepared by J. Sucy (2nd
reprint).
Jakes, D. (2007, April). Web 2.0 and the new
visual literacy. Retrieved February 10, 2008,
from http://www.techlearning.com/show-
Article.php?articleID=196604382
Jakes, D., & Brennan, J. (2006). Visual literacy
and the 21st Century Skills. Retrieved Janu-
ary 28, 2008, from http://www.techlearn-
ing.com/techlearning/events/techforum06/
DavidJakes&JoeBrennan_ProgramGuide.
pdf
Jenkins, H. (2007). Confronting the challenges
of participatory culture: Media education
for the 21st Century. Retrieved February 2,
2008, from http://www.molotech.org.za/
blog/2007/06/12/need-for-21st-century-skills/
34 TechTrends • March/April 2009 Volume 53, Number
Jones-Kavalier, B. R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2008).
Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the
21st Century. Retrieved December 26,
2008, from http://connect.educause.edu/
Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/Connec-
tingtheDigitalDotsL/39969
Kellner, D. (1998). Multiple literacies and criti-
cal pedagogy in a multicultural society. Ed-
ucational eory, 48(1), 103-122.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age.
New York: Routledge.
Learning Point Associates (2007). 21st Century
skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved
February 8, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.
org/engauge/skills/skill21.htm
McInnish, T. W., & Wright, V. H. (2005).
Learning visual literacy through online dis-
cussions. Electronic Journal for the Integra-
tion of Technology in Education (EJITE), 4,
1-12.
Mirzoeff, N. (Ed.) (1998). e visual culture
reader. London: Routledge.
Oblinger, D. (2003, July/August). Boomers,
Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understand-
ing the new student. Educause Review,
37-47. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from
http://www. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/
erm0342.pdf
Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why
right-brainers will rule the future. New
York, NY: Penguin.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital im-
migrants, part II: Do they really think dif-
ferently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
Spalter, A. M., & vanDam, A. (2008). Digital visual
literacy. eory into Practice, 47(2), 93-101.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0:
New tools, new schools. Washington, DC:
International Society for Technology in
Education.
Toledo, C. A. (2007). Digital culture immi-
grants and tourists: Responding to the na-
tives drumbeat. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Educa-
tion, 19(1), 84-92.
