Image pedagogy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under image education a portion of which is Media Education and Media Education understood that deals with images and visual symbols associated with learning, teaching education and socialization processes. In the English-speaking world, “visual literacy” is often used in this context.

The “ubiquitous presence” of images in the media and in public space has triggered an examination of the question of how to read and understand images in educational science and media pedagogy as well as in various subject didactics. Jan Amos Comenius already dealt with the didactic use of images in his work Orbis sensualium pictus .

On the one hand, image pedagogy is about the question of how images can be used to optimize learning processes (media didactics), on the other hand, the question of images and worldviews is the focus of this form of media education. The role of figuratively imparted knowledge in appropriating the world is questioned. According to a general science of images, the image is a “communicative medium” which - with different means, of course - provides information and interpretations in relation to reality, just like a written text. According to Scholz (2010), images can be divided into images that (should) reproduce an object or a section of reality, design images according to which something can be manufactured, built or constructed, and pictorial instructions that explain to the viewer how something to be done or manufactured. With this classification, pictures can be used relatively independently of technical and aesthetic aspects of their production (photographs, drawings, paintings, etc.) in their didactic potential, i. H. from the learner's perspective. The cognitive potential of visualization in art and science is certainly not yet exhausted. In addition to art education, German didactics in particular has dealt with the educational value of images; In addition to reading literacy , visual literacy is also recognized as a task of German lessons.

However, an interdisciplinary view of learning with images is particularly fruitful: characteristic of contemporary literacy (outside of purely scientific publications) is neither the isolated image nor the plain text, but the “text-image symbiosis” in which both media are something accomplish what would exceed the possibilities of each individual medium. This approach results from a collaboration between art education and German didactics and focuses on learning processes that are based on the one hand on reading images and text, and on the other hand should lead to the production of images and text.

The investigation of the possibilities of manipulating images , and therefore also with images, is part of the research area of ​​image education.

In more recent publications that deal with the role of images in pedagogical and didactic action contexts, the connection between image and language skills is particularly emphasized: Fundamental for dealing with images and text-image symbioses in schools and in the context of extracurricular cultural education is the possibility of verbalising what has been seen and understood in the picture, and vice versa, the possibility of depicting thoughts and ideas from a text also graphically (e.g. in drawings or diagrams).

literature

  • Abraham, Ulf / Sowa, Hubert: Image and text in class. Basics, learning scenarios, practical examples. Klett / Kallmeyer Seelze 2016 ISBN 978-3-7800-4845-5
  • Bavarian State Ministry for Education, Culture, Science and Art (ed.): Reading pictures - picture education and multimedia. Auer, Donauwörth 1999
  • Boehm, Gottfried (ed.): What is a picture? Fink, Munich 1994
  • Dehn, Mechthild: Invisible Images. Visual literacy as a task of German lessons? In: Plath, Monika / Mannhaupt, Gerd (ed.): Children - Reading - Literature. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiler 2008, pp. 1–32
  • Doelker, Christian : Image - Education. Basics of a semiotics of the visual. alataverlag, Elsau 2014
  • Comenius, Johann Amos: Orbis sensualium pictus. Michael Endter, Nuremberg 1658
  • Doelker, Christian : A picture is more than a picture. Visual competence in the multimedia society. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1997
  • Glas, Alexander: Image and language skills. In: Kirschenmann, Johannes / Schulz, Frank / Sowa, Hubert (eds.): Art education in the general education project. kopaed, Munich 2006, pp. 244–248
  • Holzwarth, Peter: Image education and media skills development as political education. In: Moser, Heinz / Sesnik, Werner / Meister, Dorothee M. / Hipfl, Brigitte / Hug, Theo (eds.): Yearbook Media Education 7. Media. Pedagogy. Politics. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2008, pp. 97–116
  • Holzwarth, Peter: Photographic construction of reality in the field of tension between image design and image manipulation. In: Hermann, Thomas / Stiegler, Bernd / Schlachetzki, Sarah M. (Ed.): Issue 23 (2013): Visuelle Kompetenz. Journal for Theory and Practice of Media Education. http://www.medienpaed.com/Documents/medienpaed/23/holzwarth1308.pdf
  • Holzwarth, Peter: People change pictures - pictures change people. Dossiers media in context. Digital Learning Center. University of Education Zurich, December 2012 https://phzh.ch/globalassets/phzh.ch/fachbereich/medienbildung/dossier_bildmanipulation_2012.pdf
  • Marotzki, Winfried & Niesyto, Horst (ed.): Image interpretation and image understanding. Methodical approaches from a social science, art and media pedagogical perspective. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2006
  • Neumann, Birgit: image science. In: Nünning, Ansgar (ed.): Metzler Lexikon literary and cultural theory. Metzler, Stuttgart / Weimar 2008, pp. 70–72
  • Nortmann, Ulrich / Wagner, Christoph (ed.): Think in pictures? Cognitive potentials of visualization in art and science. Fink, Munich 2010
  • Sachs-Hombach, Klaus: The image as a communicative medium. Elements of a general image science. Halem, 3rd, revised. New edition Cologne 2013
  • Scholz, Oliver R .: Learning from pictures. In: Nortmann / Wagner (ed.) 2010, pp. 43–54

Individual evidence

  1. Boehm 1994, p. 12
  2. cf. Sachs-Hombach 2013
  3. cf. Scholz 2010, pp. 43–48
  4. cf. Nortmann / Wagner ed. 2010
  5. cf. Dehn 2008
  6. cf. Abraham / Sowa 2016, pp. 30–33
  7. cf. Holzwarth 2013 as well as Bildethik
  8. cf. Glass 2006