Journal of Visual Verbal Languaging

ISSN: 0748-7525 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjvl19

Identifying The Theoretical Foundations of Visual

Literacy

Roberts A. Bradent & John A. Hortinf

To cite this article: Roberts A. Bradent & John A. Hortinf (1982) Identifying The Theoretical
Foundations of Visual Literacy, Journal of Visual Verbal Languaging, 2:2, 37-42, DOI:
10.1080/23796529.1982.11674354

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23796529.1982.11674354

Published online: 04 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjvl19

Download by: [New York University] Date: 01 July 2017, At: 11:18
 IDENTIFYING THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
VISUAL LITERACY•

by
Roberts A. Bradent
John A. Hortin t

Introduction problems that have plagued the visual 111eracy

movemen1 have, as often as not , been related
The underlying purpose of this presentation Is to to the matter of definition Thus. one more
review the historical roots ot visual f1tefacy and attempt to deal with definl1ion seems worth the
10 provide a suggested direction for 1heoretlcal effon - particularly so If se1 In !he contexl of a
ac1Jvity in the promotion of visual literacy. To field with slated parameters and an ar1iculated
achieve that purpose. it will be necessary to philosophical position.
confront systematically the questions. problems,
and uncertainties whic.h have heretofore As a final step. the authors postula te a set ol
Impeded attempts 10 identify the theoretical proposals that are designed to foster the further
foundations ol the field. Because the issues are development and understanding of the lheoreti-
complex. the subject is considered analytically, cal foundations of an emerging held.
following an approach that has live compo·
nents. The approach is linear 1n that it pro· Historica l Thinking
gresses from a review ol the pas1 through
currenl concerns to suggestions for the future. John L. Debes (Fransecky & Debes. 1972)
coined the term visual llteracy and led !he team
The first step Is a review ol historical thinking !hat founded its national conference. The
about visual literacy. This is more than a search International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA)
for the "roots .. of the movement. It is a quest grew oul of that first conference and today has
for the seminal literature. To that end , this pres· its headquar1ers at the Nalional Center tor
entation is appended with an extensive bibliog· Visual literacy, Gallaudet College, Wash1ng1on.
raphy, Including !!ems not specifically cited in O.C. With the help of Eas1man Kodak Company
the text. In Rochester. New York. Debes organized the
First Annual National Confe<ence on Visual
The second step addresses the touchy Issue of Lil eracy in March , 1969. From !his conference
setting visual literacy's parameters. The came the first major publication in the held
approach of the authors is to categorize topics (Williams & Debes, 1970) and a definition ol vis·
and fields of study as included in visual llte<acy. ual lileracy !hat was later adopted by me
interactive with visual literacy, and rela1ed to Association for Educational Communications
visual fltetacy. and Technology (Note In spite of AECT adOP·
lion, tl1e dellnillon has never been widely
The third s1ep In the ques1 provides a rationale accepted See comments 10 follow J
which links individuals in an otherwise multi-
disciplinary "movement " The intent is to gen- The search for Che theoretical foundattons ol
erate a broad posi1ion statement that locates visual literacy is a process that is v.iell under ..
visual literacy in relationship to its parent way. fn the dozen years which lollowed the
disciplines. founding of IVLA a number ol theories and
theory·based offerings were given lo the l1etd
Nex1. as step four. a redefinition ot visual liler- These have covered a wide range of topics. The
acy Is proposed. The persistent and descriplive Ust that follows does no1 attempl lo identify 1he

· Paper presented at 13th Annual Conference on Visual L1te1acy Oc1ober 31-November 3. 1981,
Lexington. Kentucky.
tRoberts A. Braden is Director, tnslructional Developmenl Division, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University at Blacksburg: John A. Hortin Is Assistant Protessor of Education at Kansas State
University and Editor of the Journal Media Adult Learni ng.

Fall, 1982 37
ways in which ellher those topics or these theo- I was disappointed to discover that
1et1cat papers overlap, and It should be emphat- visual literacy ts really nothing more
ically staled that the examples cited are merely than a "conlluence ol theories,"
represenrarive works . Some of 1he lheo1ies have brought together 10 lorm a vague,
dealt with: wsual tsnouaglng (e g .• Ausburn & unorganized concept that tries to
Ausburn. 1978. Debes. 1972. 1974; Turbayne. explain 1he notion of " visual
1970), visual th1nktnO (e g • Amheim , 1969, sequencing .' It is not surprising
Haber. 1970; Wileman. t980). visual leamlfl(J that the visual li1eracy ·movement••
(e.g. Dwyer. 1978. Jonassen & Fork. 1978. has not "moved" very far. The
Randhawa. Back. & Meyers 1977), hemispheric movemen1 has genereled some
lateralization of the brain (e.g. Bogen, 1979 " research" (most of which is rather
Ragan, t 977. Sperry, 1973). mental imagery contusing). and the term "visual Iii·
(e.g.. Fleming, 1977: Kosslyn & Pomerantz, eracy" has gained some "cur-
t 977; Pytyshyn, 1973). levels of abstraction rency.. in educalionat circles
(Clark & Clark, t976. Clark. 1978). cullurat inter- However, very lew 01 the conclu-
action (Cochran, Younghouse. Sorflaten & sions reached by visual research
Molek, 1980). and the mte1sc1tve meories deal- can be used tor teaching English .
ing with symbol sys/ems and dual cooing (e.g .. (pp. t 40-4 t)
leVle. 1978b. Levie & Levie, 1975; Parvio
197t. t975; Salomon. t972. t979) One way to answer lhe challenge ol statements
IJke Johnson's 1s to come to grips with what ls
And there is mucn. much more. There has been and whal is not visual llleracy. To dig up an old
a veritabte ou1pour1ng of germinal papers· phrase, the lime has come to "set the parame-
Oebes (1969) suggested a hierarchy ol visual ters of visual literacy."
skills Williams (1970) advanced nine visual lller-
acy propositions Dwyer (1972) and his students The Issue of Parameters
have methodically examined 1he realism contin·
uum Dond1s (1973) broughl out a basic 1ext· Setting the parameters of vrsual literacy 1s not
book Lamberskl (t976a) and Fork & Newhouse an easy task. The problem was compounded at
(1978) compiled collecuons or papers aboul vis- lhe outse! by Oebes (1970) when he compared
ual lileracy Fleming & Levie (1978) drew upon vlsua1 literacy 10 an amoeba In Debes' model,
the research ol lhe hold and compded an exten- the pseudopoos ol lhe amoeba included philos-
sive set ol principles ror lhe design or 1ns1<uc· ophy. technology, art. graphic arts. psychology,
llonat visuals Hocking (1978) oflered a lingurslics. rhetoric, programmed learning. and
comprehensive analysis or !actors related 10 vis· semantics. Debes suggested some parame1ers,
uat llle1acy goals Duchaslel (t 978) introduced but in actuality lhe relationships were tell rather
and with Waller (Duchastel & Waller, 1979) vague. Sadly, not much has changed since
elabora1ed upon a system tor the lunct1onal cat- Debes' pathflndtng article .
egorization ol 111us1rations Levie (1978).
Cochran et al (1980). and Winn (1980) have all Some scheme ·s sull needed to Identity more
provided guidance tor turure research In 1he prec.sely the parameters ol the lleid ol visual 111-
lreld Wileman ( 1980) categonzed types of ver· eracy. Funher. n might be hoped that such a
bal/vrsual image relaoonships in a landmark 1ext scheme migh1 generate a broad positron s1ale·
on visual thinking Winn & Holliday (1981) ment that relates visual literacy to its parent
derived a set of design principles tor diagrams disciplines. II thal purpose Is 10 be achieved, we
must change our metaphor. We must abandon
But wait! Is lhls merely a shotgun blast of the amoeba concept which has visual literacy
vaguely related theories that Is conspicuously reaching out in all directions - inlruding. If you
missing a comprehensive theory of visual will, into other d1sclpllnas . Ralher, we must look
hleracy? We must acknowldge that some writers at the field and clarity each ol the relationships.
do not believe that there is such a thing as a For example, we must ask ourselves, does vis·
theory o! visual literacy Johnson (1977), for ual literacy "reach Into" art. or does art "react>
mstance, K:tenhhed no single theory of VJSUal Jit- into" visual literacy, or are Ille discrplines ot an
eracy but found a ··con"uence o! theories· (p end visual literacy distinct and separable d1scl·
140). He prelers 1M term media ltteracy 10 vis· phnes peopled by Individuals with many com·
ual literacy. Johnson (1977) wrote: mon interests?

38 Journal of Visual Verbal Languaging

It is not the purpose of this paper to identify whole to those areas of concern and inquiry
every relationship between visual literacy and which are totaUy subsumed by visual literacy
other disciplines . However, an important pur· Visual language is the example shown in the lig-
pose is to emphasize the need to have the ure. Everything about visual language is ol con-
nature or these relationships clarified. In lha1 cern to the field of visual literacy. As shown 1n
spirit, the authors would like to start by identi- Fig. 1, the concerns of visual literacy exceed
fying a scheme based upon three basic relation- those of visual language. in the opinion of the
ships. These can all be shown g1aphically In authors. It there are visual language advocates
variations of the Venn diagram. who disagree with that depiction. then there
should t>e open dialogue unhl consensus is
The first relationship Is that of included (Fig. 1), reached.
which is the relationship of visual loteracy as a

VISION LINGUISTICS

Fig. 1. " Included" and "Interactive" Examples

Also in Fig. 1, a second relationship is shown eracy and linguistics.

between visual literacy and linguistics. This
overlapping or Interacting relationship implies There is a large group ol other 1op1cs and fields
that visual literacy is not concerned with all of study which we classify in a third category
aspects or linguistics, and conversely, the field termed related (to visu al literacy). Thrs concept.
of linguistics is not concerned with every aspect too, may be illustrated by a graphic representa 4

of visual lite1acy. However, the implication is lion (Fig . 2). In this case the illuslratron sug-
that there are many concepts. theories, and gests !hat the differences between !he 1wo
processes which are common to both 11lsua1 lit-

VISUAL (Fine)
LITERACY ART

Fig. 2. " Related " Example

Fall. 1982 39
 -

fields of study are fairly clear. The example chO- Graphic art interacts v1ith fine art in many ways,
sen is the relationship between fine art and vis .. including a shared concern to' aesthetic values.
ual literacy AlthOugh an crilics may disagree as bu1 as illus1rated these are no1 the things that
10 v1hclher a par1 1cular ob1ect is or is not " arl, .. link graphic art to visual lrteracy Rather. lhe
the ways in which works of arl are inlecpreted is linkage conslsls in the shared interesl of the
more a mauer of aesthetics than at visual liter- two fields in message transmission as an aspect
acy. On 1he other hand. graphic arts are a of communlca1lon.
mainstream concern of visual literacy (Fig, 3) .

VISUAL (Fine]
LITERACY ART

GRAPHIC
ARTS .

Fig. 3. "Relaled" and "lnleraclive" Examples

It is unllkely lhat any ol lhese relationships more remote. whal we term " related." or might
could ever be considered permanent. It may not even consider the relationship to be extremely
even be possible to gain a consensus upon the remote \'l/ith only the vaguest of interconnecting
nature of a relationship. For example. these threads between the two fields. It is even pos·
writers believe that the relallonsh1p between vis· sible that visual literacy might be considered as
ual literacy and cognitive psychology Is a very a subset of psychology and thus be viewed as
close. interpenetra1ing relationship (Fig. 4). A "included" - a relationship not shown in any
psychologist might view the relationship as of the figures.

I
I
/ --- ....
'
\
1 COGNITIVE 1
\ PSYCHOLOGY :
\
'
' ___ .... /
I
I

I
I
/ - ....
'
\
VISUAL COGNITIVE \
LITERACY 1\ PSYCHOLOGY /

I
,,, .... ---, , ./
,,
I
' ........ __,,,. /
I \
1 COGNmVE 1
~ PSYCHOLOGY J
\ I
' ....
--- / I

Fig . 4. Unresolved Relationship

40 Journal of Visual Verbal Languaging

The important issue here is that visual literists v!sual language. It is also intentionally directed
must consolidate rather than expand their iden· at the indfvidual who must develop these
tified core area of interest. That does not mean ablllties.
that they must forego their related Interests.
Rather. it means that the lime has come to A Set of Proposals
decide which Is which. Audiovisual education
interacts with, but Is not subsumed by, visual While we do not expect that the above definition
literacy. The split brain research of Nobel winner will be wholly satisfactory to everybody, \'Je sin·
Sperry is extremely interesting but is barely cerely hope that it is not totally unsatisfactory
related to visual literacy. Visual design is related to anybody. In its simplicity we hope the pro-
to vlsuaJ literacy, but design of instructional vis- posed definition has utilHy for all vtsual IHerisls.
uals Is Included. These exemplify a tew or the Thus we choose to make lhe dellnilion the sub-
relationships and how they could be commonly !ect ol the first of several proposals. The pur·
considered. pose of the proposals is to roster the rurther
development and understanding of lhe theoreti-
Position Statem en1 cal foundations of 1he field ot visual lileracy.

With this scheme in mind. you coutd now look Proposal 1. IVLA, as the pre-emrnent organiza-
back at the list of theoretical topics presented tion speaking tor the field of visual literacy.
above and we could open a dialogue as to should adopt an oflicial definition of the term
where the boundaries of visual literacy begin visual /rteracy . The definition proposed
and end. In an attempt to generate discussion above, if acceptable to the membership ot
about the relationship or visual literacy to other IVLA, is freely offered for that purpose. In the
dlsclpllnes. the bibliography which accompanies even1 that the proposed delinilion is not
this paper has been keyed 10 the authors' acceptable, an acceptable but equally simple
notions as to which writings are included in, substitute should be adopted .
interactive with, or related to the study of visual
literacy. The scheme is ottered as a straw man; Proposal 2. /VLA should officially sanction
counter positions are encouraged. the notion that there is a diverse body ol lacr
and lheory tnal supPOrts rhe concept of vis-
Although ll Is our hope to eventually stimulate ual literacy. This would estabtish an environ·
development of a widely agreed-upon philoso- ment In which competing and complementary
phy which links individuals in an otherwise inter· theoretical positions could co-exist A logical
disciplinary movement, thal goal may still be out consequence might be for fVLA to sponsor a
of reach. For one thing, it is unrealistic to project designed to generate , clarify, and
expect philosophical agreement when we have consolidate theory relaUng to 1he central
not. as yet, agreed upon a definition of the term concepts or the field. Another consequence
visual literacy. might be the evolution and strengthening 01
the natural philosophical linkages which are
A De fin ition necessary 10 bind a complex discipline.

A simple definition wilf serve best . Then. if we Psoposal 3. Visual literacy aavocates, perhaps
can ptomote the idea that any number of things through IVLA, should encourage the devel-
can and should be closely related to the prac- opment of special-lnierest visual literacy
tice. research. and theory of visual literacy. ine groups from the overlapprng proless1onat
movement cao proceed 1n a healthy 1nter- areas of art. English, reading, psychology.
d1sciplinary way With those somewhat toity neuropsychology, pr111osopny, linguistics.
thoughts In mind. we therefore ofler this communications, l//m and TV. graphics.
defini tion : educational 1echnology. and perhaps 01hers.
The speclal-1nteres1 groups could be loomed
Visual literacy Is the ability 10 under- in eilher IVLA or '" lhe nssoc1ettions o l lhH
stand and use images. including tho related disciplines The 1.111111a1c u.:f:111011?;tup 01
ablllty to think, learn, and express IVLA to AECT is an example ot a sta•I In II>"
onesel! ln terms or Images. direction

The definition is intended to incorporate tne Proposal 4. Some individual or group of individ·
essentials of visual learning. visual thinking, and uals must bring the burgeoning literature of

Fall, 1982 41
 the field under control. At this stage. the late Proposal 5. The concept and practice of v1sval
ot an identified expanded literature is literacy should be enhanced by research and
dependent upon bibliographic refinement resting. This is not a new idea (Cureton &
through some s1ep·by-s1ep process ol sue· Cochran. 1976. Coch1an et al, t980). but it
cessive iterations. This will continue. pending bears restatement whenever the future of
'ha emergence of an individual scholar or visual literacy is up for discussion . As in any
team ol scholars who wlll undertake a major practical field, visual literacy has many prac-
project to locate, classify, annotate. and titioners who have little interest in performing
evaluate everything that can be found that research. Slill, these same praclihoners rely
deals wilh or relates to visual literacy Thus. upon the results of published scholarship to
however useful the efforts may be of individ- identify for them the elements ol good proce-
uals like Levie (t978a. 1979), Cochran dure, to provide guidelines for professional
(t980). Bogen (1979). and the present improvement. to suggest new posslblllties,
authors, these efforts are only stopgaps, and to verify (or reject) the validity of prac-
awaiting a comprehensive, exhaustive bib- tices which have been lni1iated intuitively.
liographic work. In all probability the work will Research also can assist in set1ing visual lit·
not be forthcoming unless sponsored by eracy's parameters through comprehensive
IVLA, ERIC, or by a toundalion grant. surveys such as the one by Hocking (t 978)
that set oul 10 determine visual literacy
goals.

SEE REFERENCES
ON PAGES 58-66

42 Journal of Visual Verbal Languaging