Copyright and images

Using images inevitably raises the question of copyright. As well as a legal responsibility, I think it’s fair to say academics are imbued with a professional responsibility, since using an image from the web is using someone else’s work and we are trained from the earliest stages of our careers to attribute the work of others to the source. In this sense, copyright isn’t at all alien; it’s a familiar process we engage with routinely in the form of referencing.

But despite that familiarity, it raises anxiety. In most of the places I presented, whether as an HE consultant or at an academic conference, people have rightly asked about image copyright because they’re concerned with the consequences of unintentional misuse in an increasingly policed and litigious environment.

Copyright 123RF

I’ll try to allay such anxieties here in two approaches: prevention and cure. I’ll start with prevention.

Copyright legislation is changing and will likely continue to change. Keeping abreast of all developments has become much more complex and the types of copyright have expanded considerably. It wouldn’t be reasonable to expect every academic who considered using an image to be fully apprised of all this, but there is plenty we can do to maximize responsibility and minimize the likelihood of infringement. Probably the most inclusive method – by which I mean that it searches the greatest number of images from one search engine – is Google’s Advanced Image Search. There’s a screen grab below.


As well as allowing us to search by image type and size (I always go for 800 x 600 pixels because it’s the smallest size that will scale up to a large projector screen), we can filter for different types of copyright. Go to AIS, click on the bar the purple arrow is pointing at and make your choice. It isn’t perfect: Google has recognized that some people may upload images for which they do not possess copyright. But it is a good start and, used in conjunction with other methods, we can claim to have taken relevant measures to ensure we have followed the rules as much as conceivably possible.

Another site that allows us to control for copyright is Flickr’s Creative Commons. The Creative Commons search engine associated searches only with images uploaded by registered members who dictate the copyright license on their own images. Of course, some will upload the work of others to Flickr, just as happens with Google, but we can’t control that. I’ll be coming to ways of dealing with this later in this blog. These, then, are two sites that allow is to choose the kind of copyright license we are happy with. There are others, and I’ll go through some of them next.

My preferred source for free, copyright safe images is Pixabay, but there are many others. There’s a handy list here and I’ve listed more here. Many of them are designed to drive web traffic to paid sites but they still possess a wide range of high quality images. These normally have disclaimers: Pixabay, for example, says all its images are ‘released under Creative Commons CC0, which makes them safe to use without asking for permission or giving credit to the artist – even for commercial purposes’. We’d probably attribute them, though, because it’s in our professional nature. There’s also DeviantArt, a professional and amateur artists’ website with no copyright filter but with the option to request the right to use images directly form the artists themselves. The one below comes from the artist Christof Kiciak, who kindly agreed to me using his image of evolution for educational purposes. It’s a superb piece, capable of telling the story of sea-to-land evolution in one canvas, or slide.

Primordial evolution, by Christophe Kiciak, with permission of the artist

Many of the artists I’ve reached out to have kindly supported my pedagogic ventures, sometimes because it’s seen as a valid cause in itself, sometimes because it’s a free way for an artist to get their work ‘out there’, and sometimes for both.

The visual r/evolution is hard to escape.

Visual evolution. Copyright David Roberts 2016

Increasingly, so will its value for matching pedagogic delivery to learning capacity. Higher Education is becoming conscious of the viability of multimedia modalities – indeed, some areas have used images for decades, often without a clear justification for so doing. But now is the time of its intellectual rationalization in the shape of Multimedia Learning (MML) theory. MML explains why an image may be worth a thousand words, why they can organically produce active learning in large group settings, why and how images support dyslexic learners and how, in all this, we can increase engagement, student satisfaction and inclusivity. Schools are increasingly subsidizing the acquisition of royalty-free, copyright-safe images for the purposes of pedagogy from sites like 123RF, Shutterstock and others. Images from these sites can be used with attribution without fear of breach of copyright – if they’re being used for teaching rather than for commercial purposes. In short, payment permits pedagogic use. Details of subscription costs appear on the websites; the one my School funds annually costs around £500 a year. Student feedback, the development of empirical data on image effectiveness and NSS marks have all made the investment a worthwhile one, even before I reflect on how it’s changed how I feel about the way I teach. Choice of image source, then, is a key means of ensuring we do not fall foul accidentally of copyright issue.


But another one is much closer to home. We cite for a living; it’s part of our professional structure and identity as scholars whose job description revolves in part around ascertaining validity and veracity by ensuring source material is accessible to others.  If we are citing, there is no attempt to pass off the work of others as our own – no attempt to conceal, disguise or misrepresent. The process is tangibly honest, so even if we did accidentally pick up a copyright-protected image, citation will affirm intent. I’ll address this in a little more detail towards the end of this blog. For now, I’ll discuss how we can cite image sources.

I have yet seen no hard and fast rules that dictate exactly how we do this. I can think of 3 or 4 that range in ease, with the easiest probably being the pasting of the image’s URL into the notes view’ section of each PowerPoints slide. A second way is to allocate a final blank slide and paste the URLs there with a brief description of the image it relates to. A third is to paste a small font size version of the URL onto the image itself, preferably semi-opaque (text can be made partly see-through in PowerPoint with an easy slide tool). My own preferred way, based on the fact that I publish scholarly work that includes images by others is to do it like The Guardian does it: add a small icon of a camera and put the original URL into it, so when a mouse hovers over it the URL is visible and a click takes the viewer to the original page the image appears on. You can also embed the URL in the image, all in Word and PowerPoint. I used this method in the images in this blog.

There is also a cure. Supposing we did accidentally use an image we found using Google’s AIS engine and whose copyright provenance was misrepresented in the first instance by the uploader, and then someone came after us. The British Library has a policy we can invoke ourselves called a Notice and Take Down policy. This allows for a legitimate claim to result in the removal from their website of the offending material. It’s widely recognized that mistakes can be made, not least of all because provenance of billions of images, with many disseminated across multiple websites at different points in time. The Take Down practice demonstrates cooperation with legitimate challenges, rather than contest and legal confrontation. Given that an institution with the repute of the British Library uses this policy, I feel safe adopting it for my own purposes. But what also makes me feel that I won’t be harmed by accidentally using an image I shouldn’t is that I’m not using them commercially. Unless I take (photographically) or make (Photoshop) an image myself, I don’t them. As long as we are using them for teaching, there is no commercial gain and most copyright infringement challenges derive from someone selling someone else’s images. In conjunction with the voluntary Take Down policy, that makes me feel safe. And if you’re still doubtful about a particular image – don’t use it.

Thanks for reading; I hope this was of some reassurance. There’s also a really useful, thorough and comprehensive overview by Falmouth University here.


Resistance to visual pedagogy

This visual approach is considered by some to be a radical departure from orthodox means of communicating knowledge to students, and as such it will inevitably encounter resistance, just as any new challenge to a longstanding convention resists its usurpation.

Pawn brings down king, reversing hegemony, overthrowing existing asymmetric (dis)order. Copyright.

These are some initial thoughts I’d like to expand on in an article for publication for the next REF. They stem from a past reading of Freire’s classic work concerned with the idea that how we teach could in some way be considered oppressive. It sounds at first counter-intuitive. But there is clearly a case to be made at many levels, from how learning is imposed to how teaching neglects a student’s tabula rasa – the knowledge they bring with them to learning spaces. Freire’s work finds latter-day expression on writings on matters like active learning, which presents a critique of the passivity permeating pedagogic cultures globally. It also has ramifications for those concerned with commodification and marketisation of education generally, and HE specifically, since the primary goal of ‘efficiency’ determined through quantifiable metrication does not always or readily sit with the idea of education for education’s sake: to stimulate, provoke, entice and evolve a person’s lived world by ‘assisting in their discovery’, to use Mark van Doren famous words.

Mark van Doren, right. Copyright.

In this post, I’ll be looking at paths of resistance to hegemonic practices that have presented themselves as visual teaching and learning enters the pedagogic frame.  By ‘hegemonic’, I refer to the well-noted idea enunciated by Gramsci of ‘domination by consensus’. This is the notion that groups of people can submit themselves voluntarily to a form of absolute control. A useful example is most of humanity’s consensus to be dominated by capitalism, even though it may it be in their best interests. The mass acquiescence to have substantial degrees of our lives dominated by an asymmetrical exchange system can be thought of as submission to hegemony. Others have proposed that Brussels and thew EU are hegemonic forces to which European nation-states subsume themselves voluntarily (or at least elements do, BREXIT notwithstanding). The concept has wide application but I’m thinking here about the idea and place of the large group lecture in HE.


People agreeing to accept the truth as the media represents it. Origin.

Lectures have been with us for millennia, and they have faced a range of critiques based on their suitability for large group learning. These debates are well-rehearsed in the literature and I won’t be going over them in any depth. As a pedagogic method, they are valorized as locations where an expert can pass on his or her wisdom to large numbers of students; but at the same time that notion is challenged because communication is compromised by a variety of factors including but not limited to their exclusionary and homogenizing nature and their unidirectional form. It looks to all intents and purposes as if these debates have been largely rendered moot by the juggernaut of neoliberal determinism of planetary existence. By this I mean that the self-perpetuating, auto-legitimating, monolithic hegemony of neoliberal biopolitics into which HE has been subsumed, prescribes almost exclusively market mechanisms and their alleged efficiencies as the most appropriate means to ensure more people attain degrees in a competitive market setting that will enable them to participate productively in that market context. Where once the ‘end’ or goal of HE was knowledge for its own sake, more recently specific, prescribed knowledges (degree content, degree combinations and so on) reflecting perceived market needs have become the means to the goal of employment, profit and servicing of the market. I’m aware that this is a rather crude reduction. But universities now predominantly advertise their degrees based on metrics like graduate employment success, salary levels and the like. Often, because they have not been prepared for such a consideration, students arrive at universities with no sense that they are part of a greater and deeper ethos of scholarly learning and the search for truth, beauty and justice.  The point is that pedagogic challenges to lecture efficacy have been largely subsumed to market considerations and the economics of teaching an increasing number of students with shrinking and unpredictable revenue streams subject to an array of external economic shocks and political fads.

Universities are faced with expanding and diversifying competition form beyond conventional boundaries whilst governments seek greater oversight and offer less funding in many cases.

This may, however, work in favour of visual learning. MML literature predicts increased student engagement and promotes active learning processes. We are almost certainly stuck with the lecture format, whether we like it or not. But visual learning and teaching seems to hit two of the holy grails of teaching large groups – engaging the audience and creating an active intellectual interrogative process, if the results of testing to date are anything to go by. So, on the one hand, we may be in the process of developing a pedagogic means to the ends of engagement, active learning and large group lecture efficacy.

Two birds, one stone – achieving engagement and active learning in large group lectures using MML. Copyright.

But on the other, experience so far with presenting, publicizing and publishing on visual learning in HE bodies is meeting with various degrees of institutional and ideological resistance, mistrust, disdain, surprise and curiosity, not in equal abundance. I’ll start with the more positive aspects I have experienced.

The Higher Education Academy (HEA) has been both interested in and supportive of this visual learning agenda. I’ve presented on MML methods at HEA events and content and argument have been favorably received for the most part. It is clear that scholars with an active interest in pedagogy as well as their own fields of research have for the most part been open and receptive at various talks I have participated in. It is equally clear that there are still many questions attached to this method, from the more usual technical matters of image sourcing, to legal concerns regarding copyright, to more profound questions regarding the ethics of image use, all by way of questions concerned with matters like process codification – how we locate apposite images. The HEA has also supported a Fellow-led initiative that attracted colleagues from across the UK to Loughborough. In addition, visual learning sessions at discipline-specific conferences like the Political Studies Association (PSA) and the British International Studies Association (BISA), while relative poorly-attended, have shown interest in and enthusiasm for the idea of matching how we teach to how we learn through this new-but-old medium. There is, then, what may be called a limited and peripheral interest in a medium of communication that may ultimately come to challenge the hegemony of the written word in teaching and learning.

David and Goliath, by the young Armenian artist Erik Bragalyan. This image is used here to symbolize the challenge of visual imagery to the hegemony of dominant logocentrism. Copyright Erik Bragalyan

Beyond this periphery, in HE institutions in the UK and in government, there is a different, and mixed story. Centres for Academic Practice have disseminated awareness of the concept across the UK, and take-up has been from universities at the upper and lower ends of key metrics rankingss, with sciences and social sciences represented. Universities that have seen the method being demonstrated have overall apportioned value to it, seeking consultation. Some bodies have been willing to pay to have members of their staff exposed to and trained in its rationale and application. This is not to suggest colleagues at other institutions have been forced to absorb this method. Instead, universities to which I have consulted have wisely left decisions about whether to engage with visuality, and the extent to wish they might do so, to the academics. The method has value-added beyond pedagogy: it can form the basis of pedagogic research, especially since it is both under-theorized and has had limited empirical testing; its use can demonstrate engagement with pedagogic literature; it can present as evidence of reflection for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and can serve as evidence for promotion bids.  And in government circles, the method has also found support. The Department for Education has integrated visuality in schools as part of its Inclusive Schooling agenda. So it’s ‘out there’ and it’s novel whilst also being very well-established when we think about it.

Visual learning has been around a very long time. Copyright

Resistance has become evident in efforts to publish on the subject. Most academic journals, especial in the social sciences, are not accustomed to printing and uploading imagery in scholarly articles. Subject areas that use imagery to communicate routinely, like engineering and biology, couple more experience with less reluctance. But my experience in social sciences publishing has been an uphill one, for the most part, with some notable exceptions. In some cases, there has been an extra-ordinary consultation process between editors on the use of imagery that has resulted in an outright rejection of the use of images in an academic article designed to communicate the idea of the use of images in academic communication – even online where it is easier to facilitate. In others, editors have had to consult specialists on the technological implications and then proceeded. Others spotted the irony of excluding imagery from such a topic at the outset and encouraged image use. A final category seems to fall into the ‘old school’ category of people who can’t tolerate a woman breast-feeding in public because part of a ‘sexual organ’ was on display. An image involving a pole dancer around a giant artificial phallus, representing radical, third world, constructivist and other challenges to liberal feminist support for sex work attracted the ire of one reviewer who demanded it be removed as ‘inappropriate’.  It had to be removed. I reproduce it below.

Critique of liberal feminist attitude to sex work. Copyright Dr. David Roberts 2016

Members of editorial teams have sometimes not seen the irony of using text only to discuss a method that advances imagery as the medium of communication. Some have refused outright to accommodate images whilst actively considering the text content of various submissions. Others perhaps more used to diverse communication practices have engaged the use of a limited number of images and have rightly been very concerned with copyright matters. Because this is an emerging and expanding field in pedagogy studies, publishers not in multimedia fields have limited experience with including imagery with articles, unsurprisingly. Indeed, academic publishing mirrors the broader trend in the academy towards logocentrism.

Logocentrism, or the idea that words are the most important form of expression of information and knowledge and understanding, dominates academia and has done for centuries. It is a deeply entrenched logic that has served the academy well in its time. Presently, however, logocentric hegemony operates outside both our students optimal learning capacities, and their lived experiences before and after university. Their worlds before and after university are at odds with their time and space in HE. In this most visual of eras, attendant upon globalization and digitization to name but two phenomena at work at this point in evolution, our students have learned to swipe a screen before they have learned to turn a page. Schooling increasingly acknowledges visuality and visual entertainment has never been more influential. The advertising, marketing and sales they are exposed to before their journey with us has fed them visually. The magazines and newspapers they read are more image-based than at any time in history. Their social media and communications engage visuality at all stages.

The routine demand for employee understanding of visual social media. Copyright.

Their employers are increasingly visually literate and aware, and demand the same from their employees. Their adult entertainment opportunities engage streaming video of all forms. But at university, logocentrism prevails. To be clear at this point, no-one I know of is suggesting an end to text, in any discipline. There is no expectation that adopting visual media means eliminating words. It is to suggest that as learning and teaching providers, we acknowledge our students’ physiological learning capacities and the visual spaces and experiences that have, and will, shape their lives. As long as logocentrism remains as dominant and exclusive of alternative and invaluable learning channels, it will subjugate and repress the pedagogic potency that visual learning, as a parallel medium, presents to engage students and communicate simple and complex understanding to students.

The ancestry of text, made to look dated by use of a largely-extinct technology. Copyright.

Presently, visual learning is unpopular in the academy as a legitimate and equal or parallel medium to text. The evidence in this respect is anecdotal and sketchy. But practice is not. Few teaching academics work with images as anything other than appendages, or occasional breaks in text (unless the subject is heavily visual like in Arts, Graphic Design and so on. In a survey of academics at Loughborough university’s School of Business and Economics, less than 10% of those surveyed claimed to use images for more than half any of their lectures. This data amounts to little more than a small sample; but based on what I’ve seen of colleagues’ teaching at 3 universities, at academic conferences here and in  Europe and the US, and lectures that appear online (discoverable by selecting for filetype in Google), I think it’s safe to suggest the logocentric pattern is consistent.


A Brave New Visual World (apologies to Aldous Huxley)

This Community of Practice does not arise in a vacuum. It is in some large part a response to a social, political and technological world that changes at an astonishing rate. This post addresses the wider context from which the idea of visual communication in Higher Education has come.

Instant access to billions of images. Copyright

Only a few years ago, in 2008, Peter Felten talked about a ‘pictorial turn’ in human history and evolution. This ‘pictorial turn’, first enunciated by WJT Mitchell, is the outcome of a combination of factors that have taken us to a point where the use of imagery in many walks of life is in the rapid ascendancy. It’s not difficult to see why someone might draw such a conclusion. But it has greater meaning than just being a new or recent social phenomenon, because it presents as a challenge to conventions in literacy that famously claim written language to be paradigmatic to the conveying of meaning. In common parlance, there’s a new kid on the block. This does not necessarily infer that images have or will take over entirely from the written word, but it does suggest to some that a ‘multimodality’ of communication is evident and required. James Paul Gee (2008: 210) argues that in this era, ‘meaning and knowledge are built up through various modalities (images, texts, symbols, interactions, abstract design, sound, etc.), not just words’. In short, the hegemony of the written word is being challenged to the extent that it could now validly be partnered by an additional range of mechanisms able to communicate the kind of meaning once understood to be accessible only or primarily through text. This is the ‘pictorial turn’ in the evolution of human communication.

Famous representation of evolution, adjusted to suggest visuality in Facebook is the latest development. Copyright David Roberts 2015

There are various factors at work of a political, social and technological nature, and their convergence has great meaning for the idea of visual communication within and beyond the academy. The political structure of our world entered a transformational phase when the great Cold War conflict that characterized the post-WW2 period drew to a close with the demise of the former Soviet Union (FSU). The FSU had kept from spreading a range of values, ideas and technologies developing primarily in the West. This sea-change in world affairs coincided loosely with the rise of digital communication technologies that could transcend national geographies at an accelerating rate, shrinking the physical gap between dominant regions and their counterparts around the world. This departure from analogue to digital communications that had largely begun and been developed in the West and the East enabled near-global coverage and access. Places once out of bounds geographically because of political concerns were exposed to external gaze and then digital capture; and the rise of cheaper air travel brought more people to more places, recording images digitally.

Suggests the world has been shrunk by a combination of digital telecommunications and cheap air travel. Copyright

The story is completed to some extent with the rise of the World Wide Web, which accelerated connection between places and people and then provided the infrastructure to carry and display the increasing number of images recorded by the emerging trend towards digital photography combined with cheaper travel to more places. Innovation in hosting platforms encouraged the uploading of millions, then billions, of digital images, accessible to an increasing number of people via PCs and then mobile phones, which themselves evolved to carry cameras of increasing quality and versatility. Images are everywhere, according to the New York Times. As the trend developed momentum, new software systems like Photoshop and its cheaper counterpart, GIMP, evolved that allowed regular folk rather than studio-based professionals to adapt, manipulate and represent imagery. I was able to make or adapt most of the images in these posts and here.

But it would unwise to hold too tightly to the view that this is only a recent phenomenon. Our distant ancestors began communicating through imagery before written language evolved; ‘parietal’ art on the walls of paleolithic/prehistoric cave-dwellers is testimony to this. And on emergence from the womb, we begin to learn visually long before we develop writing skills. For the remainder of our sighted lives, we continue to interrogate and interpret the world around us visually.

Prehistoric rock paintings in Algeria. Copyright

This generation is almost certainly the most visual of all. Having grown up knowing only the expansion and preponderance of digital environments, it has become accustomed to a remarkable degree of ‘visuality’ at all stages in life. Peter Felten, assistant provost for teaching and learning at Elon University in North Carolina, maintains that this generation’s  socio-visual experiences mean that various forms of visual literacy must be a key imperative for how we think about education. Others take seriously the idea that such substantial change in communication media as we are presently experiencing deserve serious consideration in Higher Education. This is not presently a mainstream view, however. There has been little to suggest inside the academy that we should seriously engage visuality as a legitimate co-medium to support text and words, and there may not be for some time to come because this is a matter of orthodox hegemony and tradition in what remains, despite its relative digital modernity, a relatively conservative space of thinking framed by neoliberal discipline and prescription in the western hemisphere.

Weds the ideas of text and tradition. Copyright

Beyond the academy, visual communication is an ever-increasing norm. Product advertising has shifted towards the use of images, where once text dominated them. Of course, product advertising is not the same necessarily as the communication of a complex idea or argument. But even this is not beyond the remit of imagery. Creative advertising, made familiar by the American TV miniseries ‘Madmen’ in the noughties, has evolved in line with creative talent’s ability to market, or communicate, abstract and otherwise distant and unfamiliar concepts to people everywhere. In a single image, a complex message concerning domination, consumption, values, scarcity and rights famously brought into our lives the plight of endangered species. Hundreds of examples from an ever-more burgeoning creative design industry can be seen here. I’ve included two early and quite well-known images that convey great complexity with ease and simplicity.



Conveys the idea that although domestic violence is most commonly understood in physical terms, the spoken word can be just as harmful. Copyright


This image was used by an NGO to highlight the harm being done by people buying exotic pets on the endangered list. There are tens of thousands nor of this ilk. Copyright

The world beyond the academy has taken enthusiastically to the ascendancy of visuality in the digital era. From ‘selfies’ to Manga comics, from Facebook to Flickr, from digital art galleries to wedding records, from home-made websites to companies and universities avidly promoting themselves online visually, our environment is ever more visual, and the trend is set to increase as more people gain access to more phones and as Wi-Fi and broadband spread to and connect ever more remote locations and people.

The academy is less enthusiastic. Logocentric education remains hegemonic, whilst images are routinely treated with a range of reactions from ambivalence through distrust to outright hostility. Lectures, especially those done in PowerPoint, remain dominated by words, despite the platform’s visual versatility. Pedagogy too often takes a back seat to our chosen research areas anyway. But it is not as if universities are Luddite bodies. They are not. Universities lead the world is various areas of research. They have thoroughly and interrogatively embraced digital communications, so that academic journal articles that once took months to locate, order, photocopy and have delivered arrive after a few clicks. E-learning is a hallmark of the neoliberal university. Student records have been expanded to include attendance, sickness reporting and personal tuition in innovative and sometimes invaluable ways. But the same cannot be said for HE’s attitude to the use of images in communicating meaning as a valid counterpart, rather than an occasional adjunct, to the written and spoken word. We seem not to recognize or respect the experiences and expectations of our students, despite claiming to centre them in all aspects of our engagement with them. And most importantly of all, we are not taking seriously an opportunity to match how we teach, to how they learn.

Suggests that two processes are out of line or sync with one another, like teaching delivery, and how it is received, according to MML theory. Copyright David Roberts 2017

It is hard to deny the reality of this most visual of eras, nor to contrast this digital  visual revolution with the persistence of textual hegemony in HE pedagogy. It isn’t just HE. In most places where PowerPoint is used as the primary projection platform for knowledge, protocol, instruction, data, information or learning, people privilege text. I suspect this is partly because although we are increasingly conscious of imagery around us, most of us don’t critically process the communication implications of this phenomenon (apologies for any readers who are not academics at this point; I’m coming to an end here). Nor, I suspect, do most of us have the time to engage in years of reading, thinking and experimenting when the pressures on academics – and probably most professionals involved in presenting – leave precious little time to indulge ourselves in the luxury of such pursuits. Ever-increasing demands for efficiency and cost-cutting, coupled to diminishing revenues for many institutions, places a premium on quality but without proper parallel investment in testing and developing new pedagogies fit for purpose and fit for the times. This is particularly important in light of the imminent arrival of the Teaching Excellence Framework, set to measure teaching ‘quality’ in a system that too frequently doesn’t or can’t privilege it in pedagogy. I’m reminded of a Viet Namese saying, from some time spent in Hanoi in the early 1990s: ‘you don’t fatten a pig by weighing it’.

King Canute by Brauner, Luis Arcas (1934-89). Copyright CC 2.0






About this blog

For lecturers, there is life beyond Death by PowerPoint

First published in Times Higher Education July 17, 2014


By harnessing the power of images, academics can fully exploit students’ learning potential, says David Roberts


Image copyright Times Higher Education
The business world uses full-slide, high-quality images to convert the literal to the figurative: to attach visual representation to oratory

I have often wondered if one day I would find out that I’d been doing it wrong all along. One day, about a year ago, I did.

It happened when I came across the published research of Richard Mayer, professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, on the subject of multimedia learning. Mayer propounds that we have two processing elements at our disposal when we are learning: audio and visual. In a traditional lecture based on listening, his research suggests, we are able to deploy only 50 per cent of our learning potential. If images were used too, he says, we would learn better and faster. Other top-notch research supports this finding.

Continue reading For lecturers, there is life beyond Death by PowerPoint

Life after death by PowerPoint

Copyright David Roberts 2016

Probably everyone’s experienced at some time ‘Death by PowerPoint’: a presentation that, rather than engaging your attention, makes you want to run away. Slides packed full of bullet points ‘organizing’ text that appears as a wall of words, and to add insult to injury, the speaker is often duplicating the text.

Continue reading Life after death by PowerPoint

Active learning in lectures – the value of imagery

I have been concerned with the question of student engagement in large group lectures – an issue familiar to many teaching colleagues confronted with the government’s never-ending agenda for High Education (HE). Given that lectures are the means by which we disseminate most learning to undergraduates the world over, and given that we use PowerPoint or other associated digital platforms to do this, I was interested in Richard Mayer’s research on Multimedia Learning (MML) that predicts better audience engagement if images were used with words, instead of just words. His position is based on decades of research on memory and cognition that tells us we are ‘dual processors’ of information. We are equipped with an auditory-textual channel and an image processing channel, so to him and many others, it was silly to be shoveling primarily words into both our ears and eyes.

Dual processing to reduce overload on working memory and increase visual interrogation and absorption. Copyright David Roberts 2016

I developed an image-based method of lecturing (keeping text in the notes view section of PowerPoint where desired) that reflected these cognitive positions, teaching across 9 disciplines in all. My last blog reported on a 3-year evaluation of the method with my own students as the subjects who were reporting the method’s effects. The results are summarized below:

Copyright David Roberts 2016
This data confirms Mayer’s predictions and the method has been very popular with students. In my Final Year option, the percentage of ‘firsts’ in coursework results verified by the second marker and external examiner increased by more than 50%. The pattern in the chart above has been mirrored when the same questions were applied with dyslexic students, and this is the subject of another post later this year.

My initial interest in this research had been inspired by broad problematising of the lecture as a medium for higher learning. Lectures are criticized on many grounds, not least of which is their immobility in an era when people expect to be able to get such material online at home. However, I was more concerned with ontological and epistemological challenges to lecturing that characterize the learning process involved as passive in nature. In this scenario, an esteemed academic or ‘sage on the stage’, asAlison King described it, holds the greatest wisdom and imparts it to his or her students, who consume the information as it is directed to them – that is, uncritically and unreflectively.

This convention has been challenged by those who favour the idea of ‘active learning’, a notion that includes and reflects the ideas of ‘problem-based learning’ and ‘inquiry-based learning. So active learning is understood as ‘meaningful learning activities [in which students] think about what they are doing’ (Prince, 2004, p. 223).  Clearly, it would be very challenging to run a lecture composed entirely of such prerequisites, since it implies a surrendering of the lecture space to a more interactive process much harder to organise, predict or manage.

In the course of my earlier research on images and engagement, focus group members were identifying particular processes that alerted me to the presence of active learning characteristics. This is not predicted by Mayer or other scholars of multimedia learning. As a result, I reframed my research on engagement to investigate a new hypothesis concerning active learning. I used the same methods outlined in my earlier blog to test for the presence or active learning.

Based on what I had unintentionally learned in the earlier focus groups on engagement, I expected some minor presence of active learning processes as a result of image use. However, the results refuted this assumption. All key elements of active learning were present in abundance, and mainly it concerned problem-solving activities.

Copyright David Roberts 2016

The chart compares the presence of active learning characteristics as displayed by the control and test groups, as per the earlier methodology. The control group exposed to text only is shown in yellow. The test group exposed to images appears in blue. The pattern is again clear and the differences substantial, reflecting a similar asymmetry in results to that concerning engagement.

Testing MML theories for engagement by introducing apposite images into lectures had confirmed the value of images in generating engagement. An unexpected outcome in those initial tests led to further testing of the MML method for the presence of active learning processes, where predictions were exceeded substantially. Although the number of participants has been fairly low, ranging between 15-60 students, the results have been consistent across the board and served as the basis for a successful bid for a Senior Fellowship with the Higher Education Academy. But more than this, they affirm other ways of teaching that are easy to achieve and which can turn lectures from places of passive boredom and disengagement into spaces of curiosity, inquiry and engagement.

This Blog post was written by Dr David Roberts, Senior Lecturer of International Relations and member of the International Business, Strategy and Innovation group at the SBE.

Continue reading Active learning in lectures – the value of imagery