Visual Literacy Instruction at Scale: Developing Asynchronous Learning Objects for First-Year Art and Design Students

Abstract

While learning modules are not new to academic librarianship, student-centered, asynchronous learning modules are an innovative approach not commonly considered within the academic librarianship literature. This article discusses the development and implementation of visual literacy asynchronous learning modules created by two librarians for a cohort of first-year studio art students. In creating these modules, the goal was to offer studio art students visual literacy instruction specific to their personal interests and future careers. Specifically, this article discusses the module design process and how student-centered learning can be incorporated into modules in order to offer deep learning opportunities.

Headnote

Abstract

While learning modules are not new to academic librarianship, student-centered, asynchronous learning modules are an innovative approach not commonly considered within the academic librarianship literature. This article discusses the development and implementation of visual literacy asynchronous learning modules created by two librarians for a cohort of first-year studio art students. In creating these modules, the goal was to offer studio art students visual literacy instruction specific to their personal interests and future careers. Specifically, this article discusses the module design process and how student-centered learning can be incorporated into modules in order to offer deep learning opportunities.

Keywords: information literacy, student-centered learning, visual literacy, learning modules

Innovative Practices

edited by Carrieann Cahall, Robert Detmering, Carolyn Gamtso, and Merinda

McLure

Huddle, J. & Carter, S. (2025). Visual literacy instruction at scale: Developing asynchronous learning objects for first-year art and design students. Communications in Information Literacy, 19(1), 93-112.

Visual Literacy Instruction at Scale: Developing Asynchronous Learning Objects for First-Year Art and Design Students

Academic librarians face a challenge of providing visual literacy instruction at scale while retaining individual student buy-in and interest. Learner-centered teaching methods provide an opportunity to focus on the process of learning through the use of student-driven content. This article will describe the innovative methods librarians utilized to provide visual literacy instruction through learner-centered teaching practices within in-person, synchronous undergraduate studio art courses. Librarians designed visual literacy Canvas modules based upon student input about their interests and provided them to instructors for dissemination. The Indiana University Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board approved this study as an exempt study. This same study provided findings relevant to undergraduate art students' abilities to articulate their consumption of visual culture as well as their attitudes toward making visual contributions.

Literature Review

Librarians have discussed visual literacy throughout literature since it was first introduced and popularized by Debes in 1969; however, it is still a relatively new topic to academic librarianship (Avgerinou, 2003; Debes, 1969; Fransecky & Debes, 1972). In 2011, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) published the ACRL Visual Literacy Standards for Higher Education {Visual Literacy Standards) which includes a detailed definition of visual literacy and a set of seven standards with performance indicators and learning outcomes. This document asserted ACRL's belief that learners are visually literate by the actions they take, such as finding, interpreting, and evaluating images (ACRL, 2012). The subsequent Companion Document to the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: The Framework for Visual Literacy in Higher Education {Visual Literacy Framework) broadened the theoretical understanding of information literacy and emphasized the life-long progression that learners have with visual literacy (ACRL, 2022).

Educators and librarians have come to rely on visual literacy standards within their work (Thompson & Beene, 2020). Since the publication of both the ACRL Visual Literacy Standards and Visual Literacy Framework documents, Murphy (2024) has surfaced the idea of unframing visual literacy instruction. The unframing approach to visual literacy pedagogy emphasized the pervasive existence of visual literacy within everyday life. This approach solidified the importance of visual literacy to everyone living in todays highly visual society and removed the idea that a person needs an art background to gain visual literacy skills.

In addition to diversifying the disciplinary discussion of visual literacy, librarians have developed common visual pedagogical strategies in the classroom such as Visual Thinking Strategies (Nelson, 2017), The Slow Looking for Comprehension (SLC) Activity, and The Digital Image Guide (DIG) Method (Thompson, 2019; Thompson & Beene, 2023). Published case studies range from discussions of one-shot visual literacy sessions (Schoen, 2014) to instances of embedded librarianship and collaborative instruction efforts with faculty (Milbourn, 2013; Ravas & Stark, 2012). Studies also focus on the assessment of specific visual literacy skills of students, such as recognition of digital surrogacy images, which are copies of analog objects in a digital format (Lazet, 2020). Librarians continue to be innovative in their approaches to visual literacy instruction and proactive in the assessment of student visual literacy skills.

Learner-Centered Pedagogy and Libraries

Librarians' literature has long understood learner-centered pedagogy (sometimes referred to as student-centered pedagogy) in relation to library instruction practices as one method of effective instruction. Klipfel and Cook (2017) defined learner-centered pedagogy as primarily a method that helps educators take an interpersonal approach to their students in order to connect with them as human beings. Seeing students as human beings means acknowledging their individuality and recognizing that they have their own cognitive capacities which are influenced by their individual interests. The library classroom, whether it be virtual or in-person, is never full of homogenous learners. A learner-centered library instructor seeks to respect those needs and facilitate significant learning experiences for their students and themselves. Klipfel and Cook (2017) stated that significant learning is the primary goal of the learner-centered instructor and that the learner themself must attach personal meaning to the subject that they are learning about. Accordingly, in order for significant learning to take place, student input is necessary in the development of course content. Students must possess agency over their own learning in some capacity if they are to understand the importance and real-life implications of library instruction.

Librarians have published about a variety of methods that incorporate the values and practices of student-centered pedagogies. Gold (2005) incorporated pedagogical practices from adult education into library instruction in order to better serve library students when teaching information literacy. Their recommendation to increase flexible scheduling and faculty cooperation was applied to the project reported here. Montgomery (2015) discussed the importance of librarians educating themselves on educational theories and pedagogical practices in order to become better instructors, since having an education background is not always a requirement for academic librarian positions. A common thread in their research is student engagement, student-centered learning, and active learning. Learning about the history of student-centered teaching allows librarians to create a more engaging online learning experience for students.

Librarians have also discussed student-centered learning by problematizing the Visual Literacy Frameworks and Visual Literacy Standards. When discussing the shortcomings and benefits of using published standards in lesson planning, librarians often draw parallels between being student-centered and critical pedagogical practices. Kopp and Olson-Kopp (2010) described the barriers to library instruction due to the traditionally transactional nature of the library, stating that librarians must humanize research and relate it to the learner's reality. While Kopp and Olson-Kopp acknowledged the importance of the Visual Literacy Framework, they criticized an approach to library instruction that is solely based on learning outcomes which emphasize mechanical and behavioral actions rather than critical thinking. Grimm and Meeks (2017) discussed the limitations of the language and audience of the Visual Literacy Standards and the Visual Literacy Framework. Both authors agreed these documents are important to art and design librarianship; however, there needs to be a more specific approach to what critical visual literacy instruction looks like for art and design library students (Grimm & Meeks, 2017). If librarians want instruction to be student-centered and to foster critical consciousness, they will need to go beyond the traditionally transactional environment of the library classroom. This literature shows that while published standards documents have been important for developing library instruction sessions, librarians cannot stop there if they hope to be student-centered.

Authors have also described how they have incorporated student voices within curriculum development through the use of assessment and creating meaningful learning experiences through specific pedagogical strategies. Kumar and Ochoa (2011) utilized pre- and post-surveys for education technology students at their institution to understand the learning needs of online graduate students. A pre-survey was used to assess current research skills of online graduate students in the program so the librarians could identify gaps in the graduate students' skill sets and provide needed information in the beginning of the students' graduate education journey (Kumar & Ochoa, 2011). Specific pedagogical strategies included having students participate in community-based research projects (Hall, 2023), using backward design to emphasize intentional learning opportunities (Fox & Doherty, 2012), and using student-preferred tools and resources in the classroom to make learning relevant and accessible (Park & Bridges, 2022).

Learning Modules and Academic Libraries

Librarians have used learning management systems (LMS) to provide online library tutorials and online learning objects to students for years. However, developing online library learning opportunities has become even more popular since the COVID-19 pandemic (Brinkman & Hilton, 2024; Jacobs et al., 2023). When developing online learning tutorials and/or modules, librarians utilize LMS platforms such as Blackboard, MOOC.org, and Canvas. Libraries have used learning modules to promote the library, streamline traditionally in-person interactions, teach instruction sessions without being in the physical classroom, reach wider and more diverse audiences as well as collaborate with colleges across campuses (DaCosta & Jones, 2007; Jacobs et al., 2023; Loftis & Wormser, 2016; Powers, 2018).

Academic librarians have been engaged in a scholarly discussion about module design for many years. Librarians have critiqued aspects of module design and assessed the impact of module learning opportunities on student performance. Deeke and Binnie (2023) analyzed elements of module design, such as the use of decorative images, in relation to their impact on student learning. Librarians have also shared pedagogical frameworks used in module and online course design such as Sok & Skriv (search & write) (Skagen et al., 2009), the ADDIE Model (Nichols Hess & Greer, 2016), and Universal Design for Learning Principles (Fullmer & Strand, 2024). Researchers developed different approaches to combating the static nature of asynchronous learning modules. Librarians at the University of California, Irvine created an asynchronous choose-your-own-adventure style research tutorial to address library research skills "through an iterative and interactive, question-based, online game" (Brinkman & Hilton, 2024, p. 58). A common thread in the literature related to module design has explored the positive impact modules have on student learning. Librarians have looked to specific audiences for assessment and impact of their modules (Russell et al, 2018; Weiner et al, 2012).

Librarians have identified challenges to student-centered pedagogical strategies used within asynchronous instruction. These include the lack of discussion opportunities with students and the inability to foster connections between teachers and students online (Withorn, 2023). Boyd (2016) identified that the transactional nature of LMS software set students and teachers up for the model of online banking, an extension of Freire's banking model of education (Freire, 1968/1970). Boyd (2016) argued that while instructors may choose to use constructivist and student-centered pedagogies online to an extent, "the LMS is set up to be the primary source of information in a course, and the teacher is assigned as the expert designer of the learning experience, thus limiting the constructivist nature and mutuality of the learning process" (p. 175).

Background

Librarians designed this project for a cohort of 208 undergraduate art students enrolled in foundational studio art courses in the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture, and Design at Indiana University during the fall 2021 and spring 2022 semesters. The Creative Core area at the Eskenazi School includes foundational courses which are designed to introduce students to creative ways of thinking and working related to artistic production in a variety of disciplines. The A101 course asked students to focus on concepts of color theory, while A102 introduced them to principles of two-dimensional design. Instructors taught both courses synchronously and met with their students in person.

These courses' structure allowed full-time faculty members to provide instruction during a weekly lecture while graduate student Associate Instructors (AIs) supervised twenty-four smaller section meetings. Librarians approached this project intending to deliver additional resources and instruction via the Canvas LMS. The goal of this project was to reach all students enrolled in the course, even though the current workload of the two librarians prevented them from personally visiting all twenty-four discussion sections of the courses. The inability of the librarians to interact with all 208 students did present challenges to the student-centered approach of this project. However, both authors were aware of this challenge at the inception of this initiative and used the innovative approach of student input for module design to create student-centered, asynchronous learning opportunities. The authors first approached the director of the Creative Core area and described the project goals and design, before then speaking with the three relevant faculty members about the possibility of designing this project. All faculty members were excited about the idea of visual literacy modules and shared their syllabi with the authors. Having the syllabi early on allowed the librarians to design learning modules that aligned with course learning outcomes. Based upon what librarians learned about the courses' learning outcomes and the syllabi, librarians agreed to design two scaffolded information literacy modules which would address visual literacy, and faculty members and AIs would deliver them to the students. Before the librarians designed the modules, faculty members invited librarians to present an overview of this project at an AI orientation session. While the librarians had a previous relationship with the director and other faculty member instructors, they had not previously worked with any of the AIs.

In anticipation of meeting with a broader coalition of Creative Core AIs, the librarians designed a mock-up of a Canvas visual literacy module that would represent sample visual literacy concepts and resources that would be relevant to Creative Core courses broadly. Topics shown within the mock-up included search strategies for images, image metadata, and image captioning. Librarians planned to describe a combination of image, text, video, and infographics which they would employ within the Canvas module to convey visual literacy concepts.

Librarians considered the best way to present the project, including the module mock-up, at the meeting of faculty instructors, graduate AIs, and the program director. Because the AIs had limited pedagogical experience, the librarian presentation provided:

o a visual literacy primer

o a model learning outcome which integrated the course outcome with visual literacy concepts

o a mock-up of a visual literacy module

o a project timeline

o a list of project expectations for AIs and faculty members

Librarians shared the following expectations with the AIs and faculty members:

o Copy the provided module and survey assignment into your Canvas course

o Assign points and a due date to the survey assignment

o When the survey is completed, follow the written directions to anonymize and export assignment data

o Grade the survey and following assignment

The faculty members were very positive and showed excitement about the project presentation, and the AIs showed interest as well. Before the project got underway, librarians asked each AI to email a copy of their syllabus to the librarians as soon as possible.

Librarians also wrote a protocol to direct AIs in their work uploading the modules to Canvas, as well as instructions for downloading and anonymizing the assessment data. The librarians then began the work of designing the initial modules for each course.

Module Design

Librarians designed Module 1 to provide foundational information, including visual literacy definitions and disciplinary-appropriate examples related to students' future career aspirations. To ensure that the content was relevant to students' coursework, librarians drew the disciplinary-appropriate examples from areas the students studied. For example, one portion of the module talked about the fashion designer Jonathan Anderson and the way he used visual reference for inspiration when designing an outfit for the Met Gala (see Figure 1).

Another example pointed out the need that merchandising professionals have for licensed stock images when designing store window displays (see Figure 2). Module 1 also included a quiz which assessed students' current visual literacy skills and asked for their input on the visual literacy topics that interested them the most. Gathering student interests was a student-centered approach that librarians used to create more meaningful learning opportunities in future modules. The quiz at the end of the module assessed students' understanding of visual literacy and visual culture. In the first half of the semester, librarians made this module available to AIs, who then delivered it to 208 students enrolled in Creative Core classes. The AIs sent back anonymized quiz results from students for librarians to review.

The Module 1 quiz asked students to indicate one or more visual literacy topics they were interested in. Students indicated an overwhelming interest in the topic of "using images for inspiration/creativity" (Carter and Huddle, 2023, p. 8). Based upon the responses, the authors spoke with course faculty about the opportunities for creating modules which supported student learning outcomes. Two opportunities emerged to use Canvas modules to teach creative search strategies for color theory in Module 2, as well as search strategies for portrait inspiration in Module 3 (see Table 1). Both modules were based around existing class assignments that asked students to use images based upon color and to complete a self-portrait (see Appendix A for Module 2 and 3 learning outcomes). To address students' interest in using images for inspiration, librarians designed modules focused on the aspects of searching and browsing for images.

Module 2 provided access to a wide range of content, as requested by the faculty partners. The first page introduced students to a few specialized image search tools-TinEye's Multicolr search and Flickr Commons-in order to encourage them to explore tools for image searching. The page emphasized the importance of using search features, such as Flickr's options to return results that are black and white images, images with shallow depth of field, minimalist photos, and photos with repeating patterns. The instructions also explained the importance of observing details when searching for images. Librarians used the next Canvas page to discuss the Creative Commons licenses applied to Multicolr images. The page also explained what a license is, as well as the basic principles of Creative Commons licensing options. This page employed an infographic which used a color scale to denote the most and least permissive licenses available within the Creative Commons structure. To make this accessible, librarians provided a full transcript of the image. The second half of this page walked students through the process of providing attribution to photos with Creative Commons licenses, as well as the procedure applying Creative Commons licenses to their own images within Flickr.

Pages 3 and 4 of Module 2 contained lessons on public domain and Creative Commons content. The module content explained public domain use of images as well as the features that allow students to find images on Flickr's Commons for reuse. Librarians created an infographic to explain four ways images come into the public domain. The Canvas page further explained ideas in the infographic with examples and accompanying images. The authors drew upon student answers to the Module 1 quiz in order to meet students where they were when discussing visual literacy. Students reviewed Dorothea Lange's The Migrant Mother to learn about works commissioned by the government, which are subsequently included in the public domain. The final portion of this page provided information about how to determine whether or not images are in the public domain. The last page provided an infographic with information about where to search for Creative Commons and public domain images on Flickr.

Module 3: Image Searching Strategies for Portrait Inspiration

This module highlighted portrait artworks within the Artstor database, with a focus on license terms and metadata. Librarians designed the module to introduce Artstor and the benefits of using images from a library-provided database, such as accurate labels, high-resolution images, and appropriately licensed content. The librarians recorded a custom two-minute video tutorial on Kaltura to demonstrate the recommended features. The video focused on refining results by adding additional keywords as well as choosing an artwork classification. The tutorial concluded by demonstrating that Artstor's keyword hyperlinks may be used to explore other artworks which have the same attributes.

The module continued by briefly explaining Artstor's license terms as they relate to student use. A custom infographic presented three scenarios in which Artstor encouraged users to use their images, including classroom use, research, and general non-commercial scholarly purposes. The page also provided step-by-step directions for downloading Artstor images after creating an account. The third page further explored license agreements as they affect undergraduate students. The authors drew a connection to social media terms of use. Module 1 survey data revealed that undergraduate students encountered visual images on social media frequently but only occasionally engaged with platforms' terms of use. This page pointed out that the tone and vocabulary of license agreements may be barriers to many readers and offered the tljdrLegal website to explain license agreements in plain English. For example, the module provided the following license agreement excerpt from Instagram:

We do not claim ownership of your content, but you grant us a license to use it.

Nothing is changing about your rights in your content. We do not claim ownership of your content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). (Instagram, 2020) and compared it to the translated version from tljdrLegal, which read "You give Instagram a license to do whatever they want with your pictures, around the world, and can give other people that same license. They don't have to pay you for it" (tljdrLegal, n.d.). The module encouraged students to use the tljdrLegal tool to interpret licenses whenever they sign up for a service that they share images on.

Librarians created all modules in a matter of a few weeks during the semester. Faculty members previewed each module and provided feedback before librarians finalized them. The authors delivered modules as planned to the AIs through the Canvas Commons. From there, the AIs could import them into their existing Canvas courses, which allowed them to assign the modules and grade student responses.

Discussion

While learning modules are not new to academic librarianship, scaffolding modules within course curriculum through a student-centered pedagogical lens is an innovative endeavor. This section considers the implementation of student-centered pedagogical strategies in module design in order to encourage student engagement with the content. Major topics in this discussion include how these modules used student-centered design, opportunities for additional assessment, and the challenges posed by contingent labor within this project.

Module 1 illustrated student-centered pedagogy through the use of career-specific visual literacy examples. These examples created a discipline-specific context allowing for the students to envision what their own visual literacy skills could look like within their future profession and why developing those skills would be important. In student-centered pedagogical terms, this aspect of the module design allowed for the potential of significant learning to occur (Klipfel and Cook, 2017). Designing student-centered learning outcomes for the modules was a challenge due to the asynchronous and grassroots nature of this experimental project. However, the authors worked to combat the banking model of the modules by incorporating student input into the module design and incorporating assessment. Both authors recognize that this method was not a perfect solution, given the transactional structure of the modules. Perhaps in future iterations of this work, student-centered learning outcomes can be more of a priority in the design process. The quiz at the end of the module also helped the authors assess the students' current understanding of visual literacy. Using this data, authors created appropriate content to match the visual literacy needs of students in Module 2. Ultimately, this reinforced the authors' work to incorporate student-centered pedagogy within the asynchronous instruction.

Librarians designed Modules 2 and 3 based on student interests, librarian expertise, and course learning outcomes. For example, since students were interested in creatively exploring images, librarians decided to introduce TinEye Labs' Multicolr search tool. Since the Multicolr tool draws from Creative Commons images on Flickr, the librarians chose to provide a brief introduction to Creative Commons license options. Allowing students to have agency over the module content-exploring images for creativity-was a student-centered approach. Having faculty input in the Module 2 design process was also an imperative part of this approach. As mentioned previously, although the authors designed modules with specific resources and concepts in order to meet the course learning objectives, students were not required to use resources such as TinEye Labs' Multicolr tool for their assignment. It might be beneficial if future instructors not only provide students with these modules containing relevant resources for these assignments but also require students to use them in course assignments.

The project included additional challenges related to incorporating student-centered learning into LMS modules. First, and most importantly, the librarians did not have access to the individual students to discuss their interests or investigate potential misconceptions about the module content. One way to combat this might have been to provide an additional survey assignment to further gauge their specific interests related to images for inspiration. There was also no larger discussion of visual literacy as a class section, which limited the group's ability to have a dialogue about the concepts that they were learning. To address this, the visual literacy module could have included a discussion board assignment to encourage students to engage with each other. Also, since the course included in-person discussion section meetings, the librarians could have provided the AIs with a list of questions and talking points to raise in class. As stated previously, librarian workload did not allow for the possibility of visits to each discussion section. Finally, the LMS module format was ripe for an opportunity to gather additional student assessment of the visual literacy module. Doing this would have allowed the librarians to iterate and improve future implementations. This project could have been improved if the librarians had considered the pivotal role and impact of contingent labor provided by the AIs. Graduate instructors are actively learning to manage course responsibilities and develop their pedagogical styles.

While this provides opportunities for librarians to develop relationships and support their goals, it also poses challenges to this lesson and the accompanying research project. Relying on the AIs to provide access to anonymized data was a pain point; many were unreliable in providing the data, as well as following the instructions to remove identifiers. If the librarians could have been given access to the Canvas course, they would have been able to efficiently download the data and pay a student worker to anonymize it. Also, using email to communicate with the AIs was not an effective or efficient method. Some did not respond at all or responded only after many follow up emails. Librarians ended up asking the course instructors to follow up with their AIs. This raises the known issue of authority, which librarians struggle with in many institutional scenarios. If possible, being more embedded or visible within the course might provide a stronger foundational relationship with AIs and develop a sense of accountability. Another potential approach would be to work more closely with the instructors to encourage them to reinforce the importance of visual literacy in their course and give reminders to students about the modules. Ultimately, the reliance on contingent labor within higher education means that librarians must develop and execute a strong training program and continuously develop relationships with graduate instructors.

Conclusion

The authors of this paper created engaging learning objects to teach visual literacy at scale to undergraduate studio art students. While they incorporated student preference into the process in order to provide students with a chance to express their interests and engage them in student-centered learning, this approach caused friction because of the distance between the librarians and students. The librarians believe that multiple modes of student engagement, as well as closer communication with contingent graduate student workers, would make future modules more successful. Both librarians also agree that this approach to module design for visual literacy instruction would be adaptable to different disciplines. The success of such a project would be contingent upon faculty buy-in and librarian bandwidth. Both authors suggest librarians may build upon previously established faculty relationships to create student-centered visual literacy modules using any available asynchronous learning tools. Despite the challenges, the authors believe asynchronous modules provide librarians opportunities to foster deep learning and understanding of the significance of visual literacy to students as they complete their education and plan for future careers.

References

References

Avgerinou, M. D. (2003, January). A mad-tea party no more: The visual literacy definition problem [Conference Paper]. IVLA Annual Conference, Newport, Rhode Island.

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2012). Visual literacy competency standards for higher education: Approved by the ACRL Board of Directors, October 2011. College & Research Libraries News, 73(2), 97-104. https://doi.Org/l0.5860/crln.73.2.8709

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2022). Companion document to the ACRL Framework for information literacy for higher education: The framework for visual literacy in higher education. https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/Framework_Compa nion_Visual_Literacy.pdf

Boyd, D. (2016). What would Paulo Freire think of Blackboard: Critical pedagogy in an age of online learning. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 7(1), 165-186. https://janewav.uncpress.org/ijcp/article/id/74l/

Brinkman, S., & Hilton, S. (2024). Choose your own research adventure: An asynchronous tutorial to address "Research as inquiry." Communications in Information Literacy, 18{i), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2024.18.1.4

Carter, S., & Huddle, J. (2023). "I love getting to share my art with other people:" Undergraduate studio art student perceptions of visual culture. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 50(2), Article 4. https://online.vraweb.org/index.php/vrab/article/view/238

DaCosta, J. W., & Jones, B. (2007). Developing students' information and research skills via Blackboard. Communications in Information Literacy, l{\), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2007.1.1.4

Debes, J. (1969). The loom of visual literacy: An overview. Audiovisual Instruction, 14{8), 25-27.

Deeke, A., & Binnie, N. (2023). The impact of decorative images on student performance: A two-year study of online library modules. College & Research Libraries, 84{3), 374-391. https://doi.Org/lO.5860/crl.84.3.374

Fox, B. E., & Doherty, J. J. (2012). Design to learn, learn to design: Using backward design for information literacy instruction. Communications in Information Literacy, 5(2), 144-155. https://doi.Org/l0.15760/comminfolit.2012.5.2.109

Fransecky, R. B., & Debes, J. L. (1972). Visual literacy: A way to learn - a way to teach. Educational Communications and Technology.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1968)

Fullmer, N., & Strand, K. (2024). Fostering UDL-informed library instruction practices developed from the COVID-19 pandemic. Reference Services Review, 52(1), 163-183. https://doi.org/lO.1108/RSR-04-2023-0034

Gold, H. E. (2005). Engaging the adult learner: Creating effective library instruction, portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(4), 467-481. https://doi.org/l0.1353/pla.2005.0051

Grimm, S., & Meeks, A. (2017). Break the stereotype! Critical visual literacy in art and design librarianship. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 36(2), 173-190. https://doi.org/l0.1086/694238

Hall, R. (2023). Exploring the role of information literacy instruction in student co-creation of community-based research products. Communications in Information Literacy, 17(2), 308-331. https://doi.org/lO. 15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.1

Instagram. (2020, July 31). Terms of use. https://web.archive.Org/web/20200731230802/https://help.instagram.com/5810661655 81870

Jacobs, S., Nash, M., Burress, T., & van Beynen, K. (2023). Quality matters: Using a peer-review process to create a cohesive multi-campus library online instruction program. Communications in Information Literacy, 17(2), 487-509. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.9

Klipfel, K. M., & Cook, D. B. (2017). Learner-centered pedagogy: Principles and practice. ALA Editions.

Kopp, B.M. & Olson-Kopp, K. (2010). Depositories of knowledge: Library instruction and the development of critical consciousness. In M. T. Accardi, E. Drabinski, & A. Kumbier (Eds.), Critical library instruction: Theories and ethods (pp. 55-67). Library Juice Press.

Kumar, S. & Ochoa, M. (2011). Student-centered library instruction: An assessment of online graduate students' information literacy skills and needs. In C. Ho & M. G. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings ofE-Learn 2011-World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2002-2009). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.Org/primarv/p/3902l/

Lazet, A. (2020). Seeing surrogacy: Digital image quality & student visual literacy. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 47(1), Article 2. https://online.vraweb.org/index.php/vrab/article/view/188

Loftis, E., & Wormser, J. M. (2016). Developing online information literacy instruction for the undergraduate art student: A collaborative approach in the context of the Framework for information literacy. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 35(2), 241-261. https://doi.org/l0.1086/688726 Milbourn, A. (2013). A big picture approach: Using embedded librarianship to proactively address the need for visual literacy instruction in higher education. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 32(2), 274-283. https://doi.org/l0.1086/673517

Montgomery, M. (2015). Education theory and pedagogy for practical library instruction: How to learn what we really need to know. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(1), 19-23. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2015.9.1.179

Murphy, M. (2024). "Unframing" as a pedagogical philosophy. In M. Murphy, S. Beene, K. Greer, S. Shumacher, & D.S. Thompson (Eds.) Unframing the visual: Visual literacy pedagogy in academic libraries and information spaces (pp. vii-xi). ACRL.

Nelson, A. (2017). Visual thinking strategies from the museum to the library: Using VTS and art in information literacy instruction. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 36(2), 281-292. https://doi.org/l0.1086/694244

Nichols Hess, A., & Greer, K. (2016). Designing for engagement: Using the ADDIE model to integrate high-impact practices into an online information literacy course. Communications in Information Literacy, 10(2), 264-282. https://doi.Org/lO.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.27

Park, D. E., & Bridges, L. M. (2022). Meet students where they are: Centering Wikipedia in the classroom. Communications in Information Literacy, 16(1), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2022.16.1.2

Powers, A. (2018). Teaching research outside the classroom: A case study and assessment. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 37(2), 241-252. https://doi.org/lO.1086/700011

Ravas, T., & Stark, M. (2012). Pulitzer-Prize-Winning photographs and visual literacy at the University of Montana: A case study. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 31(1), 34-44. https://doi.org/l0.1086/665334

Russell, F., Rawson, C, Freestone, C, Currie, M., & Kelly, B. (2018). Parallel lines: A mixed methods impact analysis of co-curricular digital literacy online modules on student results in first-year nursing. College & Research Libraries, 79(7), 948-971. https://doi.Org/lO.5860/crl.79.7.948

Schoen, M.J. (2014). Teaching visual literacy skills in a one-shot session. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 41(1), Article 6. https://online.vraweb.org/index.php/vrab/article/view/97

Skagen, T., Torras, M. C, Kavli, S., Mikki, S., Hafstad, S., & Hunskar, I. (2009). Pedagogical considerations in developing an online tutorial in information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 2(2), 84-98. https://doi.Org/lO.15760/comminfolit.2009.2.2.60

Thompson, D. S. (2019). Teaching students to critically read digital images: A visual literacy approach using the DIG method. Journal of Visual Literacy, 38(1-2), 110-119. https://doi.org/lO.1080/l051144X.2018.1564604

Thompson, D. S., & Beene, S. (2020). Uniting the field: Using the ACRL Visual literacy competency standards to move beyond the definition problem of visual literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy, 39(2), 73-89. https://doi.org/lO.1080/l051144X.2020.1750809

Thompson, D. S., & Beene, S. (2023). Reading images with a critical eye: Teaching strategies for academic librarians. In H. Gascho Rempel & R. Hamelers (Eds.), Teaching critical reading skills: Strategies for academic librarians (Vol. 2, pp. 423-434). ACRL.

tljdrLegal (n.d.). Instagram terms of use. Retrieved May 7, 2025, from https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/instagram-terms-of-use

Weiner, S., Pelaez, N., Chang, K., & Weiner, J. (2012). Biology and nursing students' perceptions of a web-based information literacy tutorial. Communications in Information Literacy, 5(2), 187-201. https://doi.Org/l0.15760/comminfolit.2012.5.2.112

Withorn, T. (2023). Critical online library instruction: Opportunities and challenges. Communications in Information Literacy, 17(2), 332-352. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.2