Using Visual Pedagogy to Tell Our Stories

Abstract

As both mode and medium, web-based video continues to emerge as the vehicle by which more online information is disseminated and consumed. This article provides suggestions for helping Extension agents become more familiar with how visual content accessed online is interpreted by end-users (visual literacy). Suggestions for fostering the individual and organizational transformation needed for visual literacy to become a more important component of Extension agents' skill sets are offered. Examples of how video and photo content is being used in web-based Extension-related contexts are provided with a focus on those examples that facilitate online community engagement and participation. The term "visual literacy" has been used for some time and is credited to John Debes (1969). Webster's dictionary defines the term as follows, "the ability to recognize and understand ideas conveyed through visible actions or images" (2002). Although visual literacy is often viewed from the standpoint of interpreting visual content, visual literacy is also about content delivery, or pedagogy. For the purposes of this paper, I will use the term "visual literacy" in reference to both content reception and delivery. Having defined the term, we're still left with an important question: Why not use the rich literature focused on text-based literacy as a means to understand what happens when users view videos and interpet visual media? Text-based literacy is simply not robust enough to adequately describe the processes that underlie our interpretive translation of video content, especially when that activity is enmeshed with written text and interactivity. From its inception, the Cooperative Extension Service has focused on the every-day, practical needs of the general public. These needs have traditionally been met by "high-touch" instructional approaches. In fact, some of the first classes offered in the early 1900s by Extension covered the basics of food preservation and it is not surprising that almost one hundred years later, some of Extension's most popular online documents cover this same topic. While a tradition of face-to-face engagement is an essential part of our Extension culture, our future will be determined to a large extent by our ability to more successfully engage our online Extension clientele. Some Extension faculty have looked more closely at the needs and interests of our online clients. Herring (2008) looked more closely at the characteristics of those who read Oregon State University Extension Service's online content, and found that only 1{%} of the online audience was under 25 years old, while 10{%} was between 25 and 35. The primary content areas of interest to online customers over 35 were gardening, food preservation and land and soil management. If we look at website analytics (FOOTNOTE {#}1) to better understand visitor characteristics for non-Extension websites that focus on topics of interest to our typical Extension audience (FOOTNOTE {#}2), we find that the primary visitors to these sites are female and over 45 years old. Interestingly, the majority of visitors to YouTube and other video repositories like Vimeo are male and under 35 years old. If one of our stated objectives in many Extension offices is to virtualize more of our services and content to maximize efficiencies, what is the significance of this apparent disconnect between the typical profile of online video consumers and the profile of our existing online Extension customers mean? Does this suggest that online video is not a preferred vehicle for communication among our current Extension audience and that PDFs and text-based articles should suffice? While most extension programs have traditionally done a good job of evaluating audience needs, the existing services and pedagogical approaches that have taken hold within Extension to meet these needs can at times appear out dated. Extension-based articles about communities of practice (Sobrero {&} Craycraft, 2008), multimedia (Williamson {&} Smoak, 2005) and distance education (Dromgoole {&} Boleman, 2006) su gest that many Extension agents are using new vehicles of communication, but obstacles around adoption and audience awareness still exist. King and Boehlje (2000) believe that Extension's large and traditional organization puts them at a disadvantage in an aggressive knowledge-based market and suggest that external competition to Extension services can be overcome in large part by being more sensitive to audience needs. A perusal of the large number of Extension topics around the country available only in text format is a good indicator of Extension's historical focus on print-based publications and points to the inclusion of instructional video content as a more recent focus for many Extension services. As Extension moves towards more expansive transformational change caused by budgetary constraints and video production becomes more accessible to a larger group of educators, Extension agents must adapt more of their communication to an online audience that prefers visually-rich content. Here are some obstacles that Extension agents might face as they seek to develop their own skills in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Applied Communications is the property of Association for Communication Excellence and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)