‘Wallpaper’ or a pedagogic tool? The use of visual aids in history lecturing

Andrew Spicer
School of Arts and Humanities

How often have you sat in a seminar where someone has put up a slide, transparency or a power-point image, with the comment ‘this will just give you something to look at’? The underlying suggestion being that if you get bored, you can appreciate something on screen rather than listen, until the speaker reaches the end of their paper. In such cases, the image is a visual background to the lecture, effectively ‘wallpaper’, rather than an important part of the presentation. The same question can be posed about the use of visual material in history lectures, are they an important pedagogic tool or just ‘wallpaper’?

Many of the figures who populate history lectures are anonymous, faceless characters who are known solely for their deeds; while Henry VIII is probably the most identifiable figure from the sixteenth century, other monarchs from this period are not so easily recognised. Even allowing for artistic license, contemporary portraits can convey an image of how the sitter wanted to be portrayed and so an insight into their self-perception as well as more generally the characteristics of the period in which they lived. As students coming into British universities have increasingly studied aspects of the twentieth century during their sixth form years, some never having explored earlier periods of history, the visual representation of the early modern age is an important aspect of my teaching, which focuses mainly on the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – more Martin Luther than Martin Luther King!

When it comes to using illustrative material in history lectures, there are broadly two approaches. Firstly it identifies particular individuals, objects, events or locations that are the subject of the lecture. Secondly, and more fundamentally for a historian, it is a primary source. In this way the visual material can be used to illustrate and discuss a particular point with contemporary references or depictions and so reinforces the verbal delivery in the lecture.

But does illustrative material actually contribute to student learning? Of course, the pedagogic value of visual images has long been recognised. In the seventeenth century, the educationalist Johannes Comenius believed that pictures conveyed more to school children learning to read than simply words. More recently the discussion of ‘visual theory’ has considered the merits of such techniques, with reference also being made to their importance in teaching those with learning disabilities. Particularly informative is the research of Rudolf Arnheim (1970), which considered the importance of visual theory in relation to art. Although I am interested in illustrative material within history lectures, these images are themselves art and so an interdisciplinary approach is relevant. One of Arnheim’s conclusions was that merely presenting a picture as part of a lecture is not enough as the image provides a statement and raises its own questions. So using images as a background or ‘wallpaper’, without any comment, is not an aid to learning. More recently Elliot Eisner (2004) argued that arts pedagogy contributes to student self-directed learning through the form of ‘prompts, cues and scaffolding’. Clearly a principle that is relevant to the utilisation of art/illustrative material within the lecture theatre in other disciplines. The image provides the means by which ‘to minimize telling a student what to do, and maximize the opportunities for students to articulate their own problems and generate their own solutions’.

What was being investigated

Are these conclusions about the impact of visual material borne out by the experience of students in lectures? I conducted a short email survey amongst the students taking a stage two course to see how they regarded the use of visual material in lectures. Half of the class responded and over three-quarters of them said that they found the illustrative material useful. In particular, students thought that portraits of key individuals were helpful because it allowed them ‘to put a face to the name’. Interestingly some students regarded the illustrative material as a mnemonic, with one student even claiming to sketch the picture as a way of visualising what was said. Overall, students identified three ways in which they considered visual material helped their learning. Firstly they saw it as a way of developing new skills, because it gave greater depth to the subject and provided another means of learning; it was another source that could be assimilated to aid understanding. Secondly images were an aid to learning, in that they provided an alternative focus during the lecture while assimilating the information being discussed. Finally they helped improve student concentration, providing a break from the didactic approach of some lecturing styles.

These responses reflected a number of aspects of pedagogic theory. Visual material was an important aspect of learning because it stimulated the senses and became easier for students to comprehend and learn the material that they had before them. This was an opinion expressed quite forcibly by some students, which suggests that visual thinking is still an aspect of student learning. Interestingly some students wanted to have the visual images also provided in the form of handouts. They had seen the image in the lecture but by having a handout, they could reflect and think about it later, allowing them to plan and assess how it could be used in the context of examinations or course essays. Where some students were critical of the use of illustrative material, they reflected Arnheim’s observation that merely presenting an image in a lecture is not enough, informative comment is needed in order for it to be an aid to learning and as another student observed, the ability to read a source does require further formal skills. These are strong cautionary arguments which demonstrate the need to ensure that visual images are used for a specific pedagogic purpose, although overall they do seem to aid student learning.

Impact on teaching practice

The results of this brief informal survey suggest that it is worth spending time searching for contemporary and relevant material for my history lectures. In particular, they confirm the pedagogic theory that this material has to be an integral part of the lecture presentation for it to have a value for encouraging student learning. ‘Wallpaper’ would seem to be about as useful as being able to stare out the window during a lecture!

References

Arnheim, R (1970), Visual Thinking, London: Faber
(2004) "Symposium: Elliot Eisner’s The Arts and the Creation of Mind", Journal of Aesthetic Education, 38:4, pp 88-89.

‘Wallpaper’ or a pedagogic tool? The use of visual aids in history lecturing

What was being investigated

Impact on teaching practice

References

Further reading