Meaning-Making in Visual & Written ResponsesMichelle Tillander, Ph.D, Principle Investigator; Nicole Giovagnoli, Co-Investigator

University of Florida, Art Education Department

This research explores how is meaning-making is different across written and visual responses in a university art education classroom. Action research was used to investigate the written a visual responses to eight readings in ARE4243 Principles of Teaching Art. The artifacts from these responses were coded based on the type of meaning-making present. The data was graphed and analyzed. The results and dialogue that emerged in the course of the study suggest that students who align themselves primarily as visual learners will more likely produce more meaningful work in visual responses rather than written.

This case study was motivated by an observed difference in student responses when presented visually versus in writing. The goal of this research was to explore the relationship between written and visual language in a classroom. The hypothesis of this study is: students who align themselves primarily as visual learners will be more likely to produce responses with more meaning-making in visually rather than in writing.  Key Term:

Meaning-making: In the context of this study, is being defined in terms of the connections students make between the prompt and their response. Connections can relate to the personal life and experiences of the student; real world situations that deal with social, environmental, and political issues; classroom applications; or interpreting the content in terms of metaphorical relationships. Students that demonstrate these qualities in their responses are engaging in higher order thinking, and providing more meaningful responses. The content is not being regurgitated and summarized. Rather, it is combined, related, and connected to students’ own life, experiences, and the world around them; and they are thinking analytically and creatively to present the content in an original and abstract way.3

 The teacher-as-researcher role in a classroom setting often manifests itself as “action research”. Classroom Action Research is a systematic, pre-planned, and self-reflective way for teachers to discern what works best in their own classroom environment.; thus allowing teachers to formulate informed decisions about future instruction.2

• Methodology: Qualitative action research; case study• Secured UF IRB Approval (U-104-2013)• Collected student artifacts (3 visual & 5 written responses, dialogue)• Transcribed class observations and dialogue• Coded student artifacts (see fig. 1)• Analyzed average percentages of meaning-making (see fig. 2)• Interviewed participants

This research has revealed meaningful insight into the effect that alternative classroom practices that incorporate visual dialogue can have on student learning.  Visual construction requires individuals to synthesize experience, emotions, and realities of their own and others’.1 Furthermore, thinking metaphorically in the visual dialogue directly aligns itself with Bloom’s Taxonomy for higher order thinking. The connections and metaphorical thinking that is promoted, results from students’ understanding, analyzing, synthesizing, and creating based on the content presented.  Action research can promote effective teaching when findings are used to inform classroom practice.2

“Through action research, teachers make better connections between theories and practice, develop critical thinking, and engage in more meaningful professional development experiences.” 2

The implications of this study suggest that classroom instruction across disciplines should embrace alternative visual methods for assessing student learning and understanding, to accommodate and facilitate learners that favor visual dialogue as a means for processing content knowledge. Furthermore, art integration across disciplines lays the foundation for a strong pedagogical practice in that it is congruent with how humans think and process information. It fosters learning for understanding rather short-term memorization; and it is the critical component for promoting creative thinking.3

 Thus, if teachers across disciplines implement visual language as a mode of students’ processing and transmitting of knowledge, students may profit in more meaningful learning experiences.

Figure 2: This graph shows the average percentage of personal connections, social connections, and metaphorical thinking that occurred in the visual responses and the written responses.

Average Percentage of Meaning-Making in Written & Visual Responses

CODINGConnections with personal life, and

experiencesPC

“Meaning-Making”: those that demonstrate these qualities are engaging in higher order thinking, and providing more meaningful responses. The content is being combined, related, and connected to students’ own life, experiences, and the world around them. They are thinking analytically and creatively to present the content in an original and abstract way.

Connections with social, environmental, political

issues relevant todaySC

Metaphorical thinking MT

Summarizing text

ST

Summarizing content is not meaningful. It requires a low level of cognitive complexity, & does not require creative thinking or formulating connections.

Figure 1: The coding system above was used to analyze the students’ responses . Meaning-making manifests itself as personal connections, social connections, or metaphorical thinking.

 Average percentage of meaning-making made in:

Visual Responses 90% personal connections 82% social connections 45% metaphorical responses

Written Responses 35% personal connections 35% social connections 0% metaphorical responses

The results of this study suggest that the hypothesis holds true: students who align themselves primarily as visual learners will be more likely to produce more meaningful work in visual responses rather than written. Not only did the percentage of responses containing personal and social connections more than double in the visual responses; but also, the amount of metaphorical relations went from 0% to 45% in the visuals. Furthermore, the dialogue that occurred in class discussions revealed how much more personal visual language is for students.

“It makes you think about your take on something. You have to make it more your own by interpreting it your own way. It’s easier than making an author’swords your own. You have to throw yourself into it more” (personal communication, Carrie Grunnet, 2013).

Upon interviewing the students this notion was reiterated. “”

If this research project were performed again, a larger student sample and an equal number of written and visual responses would provide more definitive results to draw conclusions from. The student sample from this class has a strong visual art background in studio arts, which could have attributed to the dramatic results.

1Grushka, Kathryn. The “Other” Literacy Narrative: The Body and the Role of Image Production. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, vol. 10 n3 p. 113-128, Sep. 2011. 2Lee, Young Ah; Wang, Ye. Searching for New Directions: Developing MA Action Research Project as a Tool for Teaching. US-China Education Review A, p. 697-709, 2012.3Van Eman, Linnea; Thorman, Jerilyn; Montgomery, Diane; Otto, Stacy. “The Balancing Act: Arts Integration and High-Stakes Testing”. Journal for Learning through the Arts, 4(1). Journal for Learning through the Arts, Center for Learning in the Arts, Sciences and Sustainability, UC Irvine, 2008.

Per

cent

Figure 3: Misti Rucks, Self-Portrait, Wire & paper mâché, visual response to reading Topic 8.

Abstract

Introduction

Method

DiscussionReferences

ImplicationsResults

“A picture is worth a thousand words, but a written response is

only 500.”Personal Communication, Traci Frank, 2013

Types of meaning-making:

Figure 4: Spenser Hensel, The Lonely Child, ink on paper, visual response to reading Topic 2.