The Visual As the Critical

Moeller et al. “Visual Thinking Strategies = Creative and Critical Thinking.” Kappan 95.3 (2013): 56- 

             60. EbscoHost. 12 Feb. 2014.

Although Moeller et al.'s article addresses K-5 teaching, I found the strategies and conclusions to be naturally transferrable to college-level teaching. The article lays out an experimental teaching method at Camelot Intermediate School in South Dakota known as Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS). While the practice was originally intended to foster student writing abilities, it has in fact branched far beyond the composition classroom: students have improved in everything from critical thinking to creativity to communication skills (57). The VTS methodology is really quite simple. It provides “time and space where students learn to create meaning from art” (58). Although we've talked in class about such methods (i.e. Sirc), what immediately attracted me to this article in particular was the concrete examples of children from the school employing VTS. It quickly became clear that the students had to spend little time memorizing rote definitions of visual analysis or procedures of close reading. Instructors from this school asked simple questions: “What's going on in this picture? / What do you see that makes you say that? / What more can you find?” (57).  Our culture being an increasingly visual one, the students had an instantaneous toolbox for analysis: their own perception. I'm tempted by this idea, that instead of overwhelming learners with theories and definitions of analysis, we toss them in the water feet first. The process of critical thinking becomes less like an assignment and more like an inspired exigency.

Naysayers might claim that children have no qualms about expressing their thoughts, which is true enough. But it is the way VTS plays out that served to solidify my belief in the practice. Veteran students who had been exposed to VTS began exhibiting openness to alternative views and non-competitive debates. This was not only after hearing alternate perspectives from the teacher, either. Rather, Moeller et al.'s study shows evidence of children naturalizing the critical thinking process without instruction. They would reevaluate their thinking when confronted with opinions different from theirs (instead of refuting their peers' thoughts). They began to think about their ideas before they barreled in with analyses. Perhaps the most inspiring facet of the article, though, was the fact that students would apply the skills learned through VTS to areas outside of the image-analysis classroom: to other courses, to other assignments, to student government meetings. When thinking about how to justify to our students what they can take from our classroom that they can actually use, this article seems to answer in the positive. We are giving them abilities that will serve down nearly any avenue life takes them (59-60).

VTS takes the form of discussion in which the teacher plays a pivotal role. By accepting all ideas, though of course asking students to qualify their responses, and by paraphrases student comments, the instructor models what it means to think and hear critically. There is no judgment in response to other ideas, only new perspectives to incorporate. “Because teachers paraphrase each discussion,” note Moeller et al., “students feel appreciated.” In other words, the process itself shows students the benefits of putting it into practice. Even more importantly, though, is the fact that this discussion opens a space for students to make mistakes. It shows students the real-world limits of what counts as a feasible interpretation as opposed to what is merely a fly-by-night remark. Yet such remarks are not disallowed. Rather, students come to understand the activity of thinking as “a long-term cycle of small-successes and frequent mistakes” (59). Missteps no longer feel so detrimental to students. A gaffe becomes an opportunity to try again – to “rewrite”, to revise – and is recognized as a necessary step in the modus operandi. The notion that there is no right answer is internalized, encouraging students to try again – and on their own. A desire arises to implement changes to one's thought process until s/he arrives at a reasonable middle-ground.

I enjoyed this text in part because I start my semester with image analysis. I've felt the visual medium to be an accessible, and therefore necessary, entry point to the process of critical thinking. But after reading this article I realize that there is much more I could be doing, including not isolating image analysis to one section of the semester. There are questions that linger, however, which is impossible to avoid in a text meant for the teaching of younger children. But in terms of college-age students, I wondered how we go further than simply providing the opportunity for learners to understand what it is they're doing. In other words, how do we give them an awareness that this is what critical thinking looks like? How do we then get them to carry the process into areas that might be less inclined to incorporate critical thinking? There are many good suggestions in the article. I wonder, though, how to update it to a higher education curriculum.