2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

0-7803-9028-8/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE.

A Study of Visual Literacy in Technical Communication Textbooks:A Work in Progress

Susan Codone Mercer Universitycodone_s@mercer.edu

Abstract

The design of visual elements such as illustrations, graphics, and photos is a task facing many technical communicators. Practical understanding of the principles of design is necessary for quality print design products with visual elements, but even this may not be adequate for producing illustrations that users can quickly understand in a visual manner.

Pairing the principles of print and textbook design with knowledge of visual communication theory will aid technical communicators as they develop illustrations that are not only well-designed visually, but easy for audiences to understand. This paper will report the emerging results of a study to determine how well technical communication textbooks support visual learning by the quality and purpose of visual elements. Basic applications of visual communication theory will also be interpreted to provide a knowledge base upon which successful print and visual documents can be built.

Keywords: visual communication, visual learning, visual literacy, textbook design, illustrations

Introduction

Visual elements such as pictures, illustrations, diagrams, and schematics included within instructional text are known to affect cognition and learning. What is not well understood is how visual elements associate with instructional text and either contribute to, inhibit, or have no effect on learning. Additionally, the theoretical basis of visual elements and their subsequent impact on the

instructional text around them is divided between three areas of research emphasis: visual communication, visual literacy, and visual learning. These three areas are considered as theories or constructs that help to organize and inform the science of designing visual elements. They are also sometimes perceived as one general field of study. Multiple examples in the literature confirm a substantial attempt to capture the design and purpose of visual elements, but no overarching theory has yet been fully generated.

This paper reports the progress of a current study on the visual elements within four technical communication textbooks. In this study, an analysis is being performed on all of the visuals in the textbooks, with classification of them into a functional framework consisting of seven categories taken from the literature on visual message design. The primary categories are decoration, representation, organization, interpretation, and transformation (Levin, 1981). Levin also categorized pictures as “text redundant” and “text non-redundant”. Pictures that are text redundant elaborate on the text; pictures that are non-redundant have no association with the text. These two categories are being used in the study along with Levin’s list of five categories of visual design.

The hypothesis for this study is that many of the textbook visual elements would fall into the decoration and representation categories rather than the more complex categories requiring higher cognitive skills for understanding. A theme distributed throughout this paper is a comparison between Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), which offers multiple levels of complexity within instruction, and Levin’s taxonomy of the levels of

759

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

complexity in textbook illustrations.

Bloom’s Taxonomy represents an ascending path of knowledge complexity. Similarly, Levin’s taxonomy of the purposes of illustrations represents a progressive degree of complexity. It is useful to consider similarities in these taxonomies because they inform the process of creating progressively complex materials. Table 1 compares the two taxonomies.

Table 1. Comparisons of Levin’s Categories and Bloom’s Taxonomy Levin’s Categories of Illustrations

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Decorative Knowledge Representational Comprehension Organizational Application Interpretive Analysis Transformational Synthesis

The comparison between Levin’s categories and Bloom’s Taxonomy is important because both represent a progressive measure of cognitive complexity. The functional framework presented by Levin is an ascending measure of the complexity of visuals and their ability to support learning and cognitive change in the viewer. Likewise, Bloom’s Taxonomy is an ascending framework of complexity in instructional material. As explained by Levin, each category includes specific purposes of the visual elements and their impact on learning. Similarly, Bloom’s Taxonomy also represents the cognitive impact on learning.

Literature Review

As discussed earlier, visual communication is an umbrella term encompassing various fields. It is centered upon the study of visuals and their ability to generate communication between the viewer and the visual. One basic definition offered by Wileman (1980) suggests that visual communication is an attempt by human beings to use pictorial and graphic symbols to both express ideas and to teach others.

Visual literacy is often described as an important outgrowth of visual communication. Many attempts have been made to define visual literacy, visual communication, and visual learning. Jonassen and Fork (1975) wrote that visual literacy is frequently referred to as the structure or syntax

of visual language. These authors indicate that we generate a visual language that complements our verbal language. These authors base the study of visual literacy upon four areas of emphasis, including linguistics, art, psychology, and philosophy. They also write that visual literacy is a means to visual thinking, which is as much a processing of information as it is knowledge of visual elements. The notion of a visual language fits well with the activity of visual thinking; one generates the other and vice versa. Heinich, Molenda, and Russell (1982) do not mention visual language, but do define being visually literate as having a learned ability to interpret visual messages accurately and also to create such messages. Braden & Hortin (1982) say that visual literacy is the ability to understand and use images, including the ability to think, learn, and express oneself in terms of images. The concept of visual thinking is found in their work as well as in Jonassen & Fork (1975).

The idea that visual literacy is a process of thinking is frequently found in the literature. Jonassen and Fork (1975) commented on this issue, saying that a visually literate person should be able to process information both visually and verbally. The result of that processing is a form of visual thinking. Curtiss (1987) describes visual knowledge and thinking as extensively linked to creativity and problem solving, and states that it is impossible to achieve higher levels of thinking without the ability to use imagery.

Braden & Hortin (1982) established a continuum of visual activity, with external visual communication at the high end, visual learning in the middle, and internal visual thinking on the lowest end. Fleming & Levie (1978, 1993) position visual literacy as referring to the acquisition and construction of knowledge as a result of interaction with visual phenomena.

Couch, Caropreso, & Miller (1994) interpret visual literacy as the ability to learn from visual messages, and state that this ability has two components: differentiation and interpretation. Differentiation is the process of gaining or enhancing a person’s awareness of the meaning of visuals. Interpretation is the process a person uses to interpret the meaning associated with a visual message. Put more simply, differentiation is the analysis and decoding of images, and interpretation is the synthesis of visual information to connect

760

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

new and prior knowledge with the subsequent ability to make inferences and judgments.

When we are experienced in the analysis and interpretation of visuals, we become visually literate. Thus, visual literacy can sensitizeus to our world in the relationships and systems of which we are a part. Visual literacy builds cumulatively as we encounter and interpret more and more images. As a result, visual literacy integrates personal experience, knowledge, and imagination with social experience, technology, and aesthetics (Seels, 1987).

An Explanation of Levin’s Categories

Levin promotes seven categories to be used to classify the level of complexity and type of purpose for illustrations intended for learning. These illustrations can be charts, graphs, photos, and other graphical elements.

The first category, decoration, is a label for those illustrations that simply enhance a book’s attractiveness and that have little or no impact on learning. Moving up Levin’s taxonomy, a representative illustration is expressed when content in an image is portrayed differently than the original, as in tabular, graphic, or taxonomic representation of text. Levin explains that representational illustrations stimulate dual coding (Paivio, 1971) of content in text-redundant illustrations because they often take information originating in one mode and present it in another, such as in tabular representation of content that is also presented as an embedded image.

The organization label can be applied to content that is not well structured, occurring when a visual image helps to organize content. Interpretation, according to Levin, is when an illustration or an image helps abstract or difficult content to be understood more easily. For example, interpretational illustrations in medical textbooks are helpful when a verbal explanation of a medical condition is much more understandable with the help of a related illustration.

Levin’s category of transformation occurs when illustrations change content into a form that generates better long-term memory. The changes in content represent the creation of “extra-textual” (p. 215) information that aids in storage and retrieval. When the transformation function is operational in

text and illustrations, maximum learning is expected to occur. Transformative illustrations are achieved by the creation of a meaningful and associative link between illustrations and text. Transformation in illustrations does not occur often. An example would be an interactive document with mnemonic components accompanied by questions that require higher order thinking.

Levin also offers two categories in the area of text support by visual elements. Text-redundant is a classification by which illustrations are considered supportive of the text content that they surround. Text Non-Redundant is the opposite; these illustrations exist without a relationship to the text on the page, and may be used as simple decoration or even new material.

Research Method

This study is using a qualitative design to assess the degree of complexity and purpose of the textbook illustrations. Levin’s (1981) categories of the purposes of illustrations are being used to categorize the illustrations in four different technical communication textbooks. Currently, data is being collected, analyzed, and generated into a tabular format for comparison among categories. After all preliminary research has been completed, a frequency analysis will be performed to determine which category or categories contain the most illustrations.

For this study, the value of a qualitative research design lies in the ability to subjectively analyze data and to then generate interpretations of that data. Regarding qualitative research, Bogdan & Biklen (1998) state that qualitative researchers: “. . . proceed . . . based on theoretical assumptions (that meaning and process are crucial in understanding human behavior, that descriptive data are what is important to collect, and that analysis is best done inductively) and on data-collection traditions (such as participant-observation, unstructured interviewing, and document analysis). It is not that qualitative research design is nonexistent; it is rather that the design is flexible.”

In this study, descriptive data from four technical communication textbooks is being collected, and document analysis of

761

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

illustrations in those textbooks is the primary means of data collection and study. The primary research question is whether the illustrations in the technical communication textbooks will span across the entire spectrum of illustration complexity according to Levin (1981). As stated earlier, the hypothesis is that most illustrations will be categorized at the lower levels of complexity. During the course of the study, alternate patterns are emerging that (so far) fail to support the hypothesis. Additionally, these patterns are providing answers for the original research question.

The actual data collection method is being implemented by the researcher who is analyzing each illustration in the textbook and coding it according to categories of complexity.

Emerging Results

As stated earlier, the purpose of this study is to investigate and categorize illustrations in technical communication textbooks using seven categories taken from the visual communication literature. Additionally, the study is seeking to learn how illustrations promote learning at different levels of the illustration categories.

Currently, two of the four technical communication textbooks are being analyzed. Analysis of Textbook One is already completed, and Textbook Two is almost complete. Both texts have patterns that do not as yet provide support for the study’s hypothesis.

In the first textbook analyzed, illustrations in eighteen chapters were classified according to Levin’s categories. In this textbook, 280 illustrations were analyzed. Of these, 21 were classified as decorational, 109 as representational, 120 as organizational, 29 as interpretational, and none as transformative. Also, 258 were classified as text redundant, meaning they support the text on the page, and 22 were classified as text non-redundant, meaning they presented new material not described in the text or were for decoration only. Table 2 presents these numbers in tabular format with abbreviations for the seven purposes of illustrations. The abbreviations are:

Dec: Decoration Rep: Representational Org: Organizational Int: Interpretational Trans: Transformative Text NR: Text Non-Redundant Text R: Text Redundant

Table 2. Data Comparisons from Textbook One N=280Dec Rep Org Int Trans Text

NRTextR

21 109 120 29 0 22 258

Analysis of the first textbook yields results that span more across the Representational and Organizational categories. Twenty-nine illustrations matched the interpretational level, and a huge number (258) of the illustrations were text redundant. Of the second textbook analyzed, the numbers are somewhat different. In this textbook, 93 illustrations have been analyzed so far. Of these, 28 were classified as decorational, 15 as representational, 3 as organizational, zero as interpretational, and zero as transformative. Also, 19 were classified as text redundant, and 28 were classified as text non-redundant, meaning they presented new material not described in the text or were there for decoration only. Table 3 presents the numerical analysis of Textbook Two.

Table 3. Data Comparisons from Textbook Two N=93Dec Rep Org Int Trans Text

NRTextR

28 15 3 0 0 19 28

The second textbook indicates that its illustrations were weak in the organizational and interpretation categories. So far, 28 of the 93 images fall in the decoration category – the highest number across the taxonomy. Transformative illustrations were not rated, just as in the first textbook analyzed. Additionally, the text non-redundant and text redundant are slightly different; in this book, text non-redundant illustrations are more numerous.

Interpretation

Although a significant amount of data has not yet been collected and analyzed, the data gathered so far represent differences in expected results. In planning this research, it was expected that

762

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

textbooks would contain illustrations that fell only in the lower levels of Levin’s hierarchy -- within those categories of decoration and representation.In other words, the expectation was that most illustrations would not stimulate higher levels of thinking and learning -- similar to the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This assumption was mostly true in Textbook One, but not in Textbook Two.

If this data is generalized to the wider audience of technical communication textbooks and readers of those books, then an expectation might be that while most illustrations do remain at the lower levels of Levin’s taxonomy, there is a significant number classified as text-redundant – a finding which shows most illustrations are there to support the text. Text redundant illustrations help stimulate understanding in readers because they offer dual-coding opportunities, making more opportunities for storing material in long-term memory.

Even though data collection is not complete, the completion of this study may emit a call for increased numbers of more complex visuals that represent the higher ends of both Levin’s categories and Bloom’s taxonomies.

Plans for Future Research

This research must continue to complete its planned investigation. Two textbooks remain; an analysis of them will hopefully yield new data that better explains the levels of illustrations and their categorization. A particular interest is whether the illustrations in the yet-to-be examined textbooks remain highly text-redundant. Another interest is whether illustrations in these textbooks will break out of the lower levels and fill the interpretational and transformative levels of Levin’s hierarchy.

Further research will yield answers that may be generalizable to a wider sample of textbooks and those practitioners who illustrate them.

References

[1] J.R Levin, “On functions of pictures in prose”,in Neuropsychological and Cognitive Processes in Reading, F.J Pirozzolo, and M.C. Wittrock, Eds.New York: Academic Press, 1981.

[2] B.S. Bloom, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals:

Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York; Toronto: Longmans, Green (1956).

[3] R.E. Wileman, Exercises in visual thinking,New York: Hastings House, 1980.

[4] D.H. Jonassen, and D.J. Fork, “Visual literacy: a bibliographic survey” in the PennsylvaniaLearning Resource Association Annual Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania. (1975) ED 131837

[5] R, Heinich, M. Molenda, and J.D. Russell . Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., (1993).

[6] Roberts A. Braden, and, J.A. Hortin, “Identifying the Theoretical Foundations of Visual Literacy,” Journal of Visual & Verbal Language,vol 2, pp. 37-42, 1982.

[7] D. Curtiss, Introduction to visual literacy.Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall (1987).

[8] M. Fleming, and W.H. Levie, Instructionalmessage design: principles from behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, (1978, 1993).

[9] R.A. Couch, E.J Caropreso, and H.B. Miller, “Making meaning from visuals: creative thinking and interpretation of visual information,” in Visual literacy: a spectrum of visual learning. D.M. Moore & F.M. Dwyer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology, (1994).

[10] B. Seels, “Visual literacy: the definition problem,” in Visual literacy: a spectrum of visual learning. D.M. Moore & F.M. Dwyer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology, (1994). [11] A. Paivio, Imagery and Verbal Processes.Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1971.

[12] R.C. Bogdan and S.K. Biklen, Qualitativeresearch in education: an introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, (1998).

About the Author

Susan Codone is an Assistant Professor of Technical Communication at Mercer University in Macon, GA. Her research interests include visual communication and multimedia.

763