Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 65 knowledge through a course in visual rhetoric that emphasizes the persuasive power of im- ages and text, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each and showing how they best work together to create an effective argument. Teaching Visual Literacy in the Classroom We have seen how the image has persuasive power and how it works symbiotically along- side text. Now comes the issue of how professors should teach visual literacy in the class- room. What do the students need to know and what is the best way to present that infor- mation to them? We will look at four areas of visual literacy professors should emphasize to their students: First, they need to explain the definition of visual literacy and its im- portance. Second, they need to recognize that teaching technology is not teaching design. Third, they need to allow their students to practice critically evaluating images. And fourth, they need to understand that there are ethical issues to consider regarding images. First, Portewig (2004, 40) defines visual literacy as “the faculty of visually thinking, analyz- ing, and communicating. Its instruction seeks to develop in students the cognitive process of developing visuals as well as an understanding of the context and elements that form the visual message.” Visual literacy is the mark of a well-rounded professional writer. Portewig (2004, 41) further argues that students should be able to identify more than just the ele- ments of a visual. They need to be able to pull from a “visual toolbox” when creating and evaluating visual messages. Just as there are entire courses teaching analytical skills re- garding textual rhetoric, professors should teach their students “to be as canny in their reading of visual rhetoric as they are in their reading of textual rhetoric” (Kimball 2006, 379). Second, when focusing on visual literacy, professors must meticulously avoid the slippery slope of technology-driven design. Technology-driven design focuses on how to use tech- nology to accomplish a goal, for example, how to create visual effects using Photoshop. Many professors fall into teaching in a technology-driven way because, “[l]acking a strong background in art, visual studies, or visual communication in some form, [they] tend to gravitate toward the familiar” (Brumberger 2010, 461). While it is important to learn how to use technology efficiently and effectively, it is easy to mistake teaching technology as teaching design. Solely teaching technology focuses only on the “how” and neglects the “why”. If professors teach technology alone, they miss the chance to teach their students how to make the types of informed design decisions that lead to argument-furthering, ef- fective visuals. This is not to say there is no room for excellence when it comes to knowledge about the tools within technology. Quite the contrary, in fact. The main point here echoes Brumberger (2010) who says, “Students cannot rely solely on technical profi- ciency, no matter how glossy the end products may appear; at the same time, however, they cannot rely solely on rhetorical knowledge without the tools to render that knowledge useful.” So, we see that knowledge of tools and visual literacy have the same kind of symbi- otic relationship images and text have. They cannot function without each other, but there is danger in emphasizing one to the neglect of the other. Students in a technology-driven design environment quickly become excited about their marketable design skills. They ea- gerly list Adobe programs and other software on their resume, believing this to be suffi-