Students born in the last two decades can identify themselves as members of the first generation fully immersed in the golden age of technology. Unlike those students, I was born before the birth of the internet and digital world. The way in which I think is fundamentally quite different from college students today because I learned composition by reading and writing long-hand. Although students still write and read in traditional ways, they now communicate primarily through numerous, highly complex, sophisticated digital outlets. In an article, "Rhetoric of the Image," 20th century French semiologist Roland Barthes analyzed how an image communicates certain messages to viewers through several essential, layered signs. Barthe ultimately argued that imagery is a real language. Just missing the digital age himself, his article foreshadowed a surge in communication through imagery. Despite this surge, the world has perhaps not quite caught up with thorough understandings of the power and newfound necessity of visual rhetoric.
As I begin thinking about how to teach composition, I wonder—How do I bridge the gap between my generation and that of my students to effectively communicate with them about how to write well? Would a keen awareness and implementation of visual rhetoric teach students to become better writers? What would visual rhetoric even look like in a composition class? Broadly, can a semiotical approach to composition pedagogy work? These were a few of my questions.
In addition to the those questions, I began my exploration of the topic of visual communication with a myriad of looming etherial thoughts, so I wanted to look first for a practical application of visual rhetoric in the teaching of composition. In her article, "From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing," Diana George discusses the role of visual literacy in the classroom, offers an example of a real approach, and advocates for a progressive, visual pedagogy for composition. George states that students are not more visually 'talented' than teachers, but I have to wonder if that is really true in this age (14). It is clear that students today learn how to use computers, the internet, and other technological outlets at a much younger age. Students' early understanding of visual information makes them fluent in the language of visual communication—a clear advantage over teachers who adapted to technology at a later stage in life. Is teaching students to translate their innate awareness of comprehension of visual information to actual visual rhetoric and visual argument in the classroom perhaps one of the most important goals of composition? I'm not sure, but I do tend to think that students are more visually inclined than most teachers these days.
Throughout the essay, George discusses visual communication mostly by describing the history of visual aids in pedagogical instruction manuals for writing and general books students read. In some sense, I thought her case was limiting. At the beginning of her article, she describes an assignment in which she asks students to make visual arguments by bringing actual images to class. But she presents the example and abandons it quickly. I thought she could further explain and develop her classroom application.
While George makes a case for visual communication in the classroom, she also asks, "Are images strategies for getting students to pay attention to detail? Do they mimic the rhetoric of verbal argument? Are they a dumbing down of writing instruction making visible to nonverbal students what the verbally gifted can conceptualize? Certainly, there is the message in much of this work that images may be useful, even proper stimuli for writing, but they are no substitute for the complexity of language (22)." Perhaps the answers to all of these questions lead to both negative and positive results. Before reading the article, I really hadn't thought much about the negative aspects of using visual rhetoric in the classroom. Perhaps the visual communication actually does "dumb down" compositional material. These questions and discussion in George's article made me address some of the negative aspects of visual communications. As I think further about teaching composition, I now realize that I will have to think carefully about what sort of visual communication is best for the students, and not use and teach visual rhetoric in a way that detracts from an understanding of verbal and written communication.
While George's article illuminated both the negative and positive results of visual communication, it leaves me pondering an ultimate question. What specific assignments can I create for students to write and convey their ideas clearly and verbally in a new and rapidly changing visual age.
George, Diana. "From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing." College Composition and Communication, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Sep., 2002), pp. 11-39
I don't know if you were at the colloquium last week, but if you were, you had a chance to see a Prezi-based presentation. If you weren't there I don't know exactly how I would describe a Prezi. First, it's free. You can make them online, and store them online (like dropbox). If you make one, you start off with an empty three dimensional space (picture the weird arsenal in the first Matrix movie); within this space, you can arrange any kind of image or text you want. But, the part that is really cool is how you move around in this space. You basically have unlimited spatial freedom. Instead of moving in a linear, page-like frame by frame manner, you flit around between images placed in the same space. If you are watching it on a large screen (like we were last week, and in that case, screens) it can be mildly disorienting. This, though, is its only draw back. I think that it is one of the most efficient ways to visually organize information.
ReplyDeleteI had a friend who finished her Ph. D last year and she used Prezi for her daily lectures. Not only did she find that her students responded well to this method of presentation, but she found that it helped her to organize her thoughts as well. In my opinion, it seems like a radically new way to visually organize ideas; I mean, I can't think of anything that works in the same fashion as Prezi. Relationships between disparate things can be visually demonstrated in a way that, to me, seems superior to mere linear sequence. At the very least, it certainly trumps Powerpoint.
I've experimented with making them, and it looks easier than it is. I'd like to keep working on it though, because I think it would be sweet to use in the classroom next year.