Assessing visual literacy: a case study of developing a rubric for identifying and applying criteria to undergraduate student learning

Teaching in Higher Education

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 705-719

  Bowen, Tracey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

assessment; learning outcomes; SOLO taxonomy; Visual literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011856693     PISSN: 13562517     EISSN: 14701294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1289507     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. ACRL. 2011. ACRL VLC Standards for Higher Education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/visualliteracy.
2. Adsanatham, C., P., Alexander, K., Carsey, A., Dubisar, W., Fedeczko, D., Landrum-Geyer, C., Lewiecki, et al. 2013. “Going Multimodal:Programmatic, Curricular and Classroom Change.” In Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres, edited by T., Bowen, and C., Whihaus, 282–312. Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press.
3. Anden-Papadopoulos, K., 2014. “Citizen Camera-witnessing:Embodied Political Dissent in the Age of ‘Mediated Mass Self-comunication’.” New Media & Society 16 (5):753–769. doi:10.1177/1461444813489863.
4. Arnheim, R., 1969. Visual Thinking. Berkeley:University of California Press.
5. Avgerinou, M., 2011. “Toward a Cohesive Theory of Visual Literacy.” Journal of Visual Literacy 30 (2):1–19. doi:10.1080/23796529.2011.11674687
6. Biggs, J. B., and K. F., Collis. 1982. Evaluating the Quality of Learning:The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York:Academic Press.
7. Birdsell, D., and L., Groarke. 2004. “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.” In Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World, edited by Carolyn, Handa, 309–320. New York:Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
8. Blaagaard, B., 2013. “Post-human Viewing:A Discussion of the Ethics of Mobile Phone Imagery.” Visual Communication 12 (3):359–374. doi:10.1177/1470357213483056.
9. Blair, J. A., 2004. “The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments.” In Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World, edited by Carolyn, Handa, 321–363. New York:Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
10. Boulton-Lewis, Gillian M., 1995. “The SOLO Taxonomy as a Means of Shaping and Assessing Learning in Higher Education.” Higher Education Research & Development 14 (2):145–154. doi:10.1080/0729436950140201
11. Bowden, J., and F. Marton. 1998. The University of Learning:Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. London:Kogan Page.
12. Bowen, T., and C., Whithaus. 2013. Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres. Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press.
13. Burnett, R. E., A., Frazee, K., Hanggi, and A., Madden. 2014. “A Programmatic Ecology of Assessment:Using a Common Rubric to Evaluate Multimodal Processes and Artifacts.” Computers and Composition 31:53–66. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2013.12.005
14. Cherry, N. L., 2005. “Preparing for Practice in the Age of Complexity.” Higher Education Research & Development 24 (4):309–320. doi:10.1080/07294360500284649.
15. Davis, M., and K. B., Yancy. 2014. “Notes Toward the Role of Materiality in Composing, Reviewing, and Assessing Multimodal Texts.” Computers and Composition 31:13–28. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2014.01.001
16. van Dijck, J., 2013. “You Have One Identity:Performing the Self on Facebook and LinkedIn.” Media, Culture & Society 35 (2):199–215. doi:10.1177/0163443712468605.
17. Drucker, J., 2014. Graphesis:Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
18. Elkins, J., 2007. Visual Literacy. New York:Routledge.
19. Fleckenstein, K., 2007. “Testifying Seeing and Saying in World Making.” In Ways of Seeing, Ways of Speaking:The Interegation of Rhetoric and Vision in Construction of the Real, edited by K., Fleckenstein, S., Hum, and L. T., Calendrillo, 3–30. Indiana:Parlor Press.
20. Gee, J. P., 2000. “New People in New Worlds:Networks, the New Capitalism and Schools.” In Multiliteracies:Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill, Cope, and M., Kalantzis, 43–68. London:Routledge.
21. Gutiérrez, K. D., and J. D., Hunter. 2009. “Re-mediating the University:Learning through Sociocritical Literacies.” Pedagogies:An International Journal (4):1–23. doi:10.1080/15544800802557037.
22. Hagan, S., 2007. “Visual/Verbal Collaboration in Print:Complementary Differences, Necessary Ties, and an Untapped Rhetorical Opportunity.” Written Communication 24 (1):49–73. doi:10.1177/0741088306296901
23. Hill, C., 2004. “The Psychology of Rhetorical Images.” In Defining Visual Rhetorics, edited by Charles A., Hill and Marguerite, Helmers, 25–40. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Kazmierczak, E., 2001. “Iconicity, Diagrammatics, and Aesthetic Preferences:A Semiotic Perspective on Visual Literacy and Information Design.” Visual Sociology 16 (1):89–99. doi:10.1080/14725860108583828
25. Kemp, N., 2013. “How Marketers Can Rise to the Challenge of the New Visual Economy.” Marketing Magazine. Accessed 15 April, 2015. http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1187672/marketers-rise-challenge-new-visual-economy.
26. Kress, G., 2000. “Design and Transformation:New Theories of Meaning.” In Multiliteracies:Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by B., Cope, and M., Kalantzis, 153–161. Routledge:New York.
27. Kress, G., 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. New York:Routledge.
28. Kress, G., and T., van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading Images:The Grammar of Visual Design. London:Routledge.
29. La Grandeur, K., 2005. “Digital Images and Classical Persuasion.” In Eloquent Images:Word and Image in the Age of New Media, edited by Mary E., Hocks, and Michelle, Kendrick, 118–136. Cambridge:MIT Press.
30. Lankshear, C., and M., Knoble. 2003. New Literacies. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
31. Lester, P. M., 2014. Visual Communications:Images with Messages. 6th ed. Boston:Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
32. Leung, C., 2000. “Assessment for Learning:Using SOLO Taxonomy to Measure Design Performance of Design and Technology Students.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10:149–161. doi:10.1023/A:1008937007674
33. Mirzoeff, N., 1999. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London:Routledge.
34. Mitchell, W. J. T., 2005. What do Pictures Want? Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
35. Moss, P., B., Girard, and L., Haniford. 2006. “Validity in Educational Assessment.” Review of Research in Education 30:109–162. doi:10.3102/0091732X030001109
36. New London Group. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies:Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66:60–93. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
37. Rice, J., and M., O’Gorman. 2008. New Media/New Methods:The Academic Turn from Literacy to Electracy. Anderson, SC:Parlor Press.
38. Selfe, Cynthia., 2004. “Toward New Media Texts:Taking up the Challenges of Visual Literacy.” In Writing New Media:Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition, edited by A., Wysocki, J., Johnson- Eilola, C., Selfe, and G., Sirc, 67–110. Logan:Utah State University Press.
39. Stafford, B., 2004. “Visual Pragmatism in a Virtual World.” In Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World, edited by Carolyn, Handa, 209–222. New York:Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
40. Weaver, J. A., 2005. “Digital Aesthetics.” JCT 21:77–95.
41. Wysocki, A. F., 2005. Away with Words:On the Possibilities in Unavailable Designs.” Computers and Composition 22 (1):55–62. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.011