Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Exploring critical and visual literacy needs in digital learning

environments: The use of memes in the EFL/ESL
university classroom
Elena Domínguez Romero a, *, Jelena Bobkina b
a
Department of English Language and Linguistics, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
b
Department of Linguistics Applied to Science and Technology at the Technical University of Madrid (UPM), Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper draws from the need to approach 21st century university students as reflective viewers
Critical literacy and thinkers able to read digital texts, thereby properly acquiring language, culture and literature
Visual literacy as a continuum. We aim to explore and identify our 21st century EFL/ESL university learners’
Digital environments
viewing and thinking needs through the use of memes in the EFL/ESL classroom. Accordingly, we
Memes
EFL/ESL
conducted a classroom-based study with 52 final year students on the Degree in English Studies at
Higher education the Complutense University of Madrid in Spain. We developed and implemented a meme-based
activity and a rubric for measuring the capacities of our students as effective critical and visual
readers. Results point to the need for an emphasis on critical thinking and visual literacy skills in
the EFL/ESL university classroom, as visual communication gains prominence in a competitive
world while students remain to lack preparation in this area. The processing of multimodal texts
remains on a superficial level. Essential needs were detected concerning the interpretation of the
cultural meanings of the texts, and the identification of their supposed intentions.

1. Introduction

Mental models are construed from (i) external data (perception and comprehension) and (ii) instantiations of generic knowledge
(organised in schemas, scripts or frames). They are multimodal – involving all possible, embodied, experiences of social actors (vision,
hearing, sensorimotor or emotions) – and offer a cognitive framework to explain and relate both verbal and visual understanding
(Abdel-Raheem, 2020, p.305).
In the present paper, we claim that the role of the 21st century student needs to be that of a critical visual reader. This requires the
acquisition of critical and visual literacy skills such as summarising and interpreting verbal messages, visual images and design ele­
ments, inferring and asking questions. Sight is the most direct means of accessing an objective knowledge of reality and, therefore, the
most preferred source of information.1 It is a fact that visual literacy is closely related to critical thinking as it involves a set of cognitive
processes that range from simple identification to complex interpretation at contextual, metaphorical and philosophical levels.
Appropriately, the interpretation of visual texts requires the activation of “many aspects of cognition such as personal association,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: elenadominguez@filol.ucm.es (E. Domínguez Romero).
1
The relation of sight with the linguistic expression of knowledge has been the object of an extensive literature (Dundes, 1972; Danesi, 1985,
1990; Gallup & Cameron, 1992; Hanegreefs, 2008; Lien, 2005; Manns, 1983; Sjöström, 1999; Tyler, 1984; Yu, 2004).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100783
Received 20 September 2020; Received in revised form 14 December 2020; Accepted 22 December 2020
Available online 3 February 2021
1871-1871/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

questioning, speculating, analysing, fact-finding, and categorising” (Yenawine, 2005, p. 845).

Visual literacy, together with critical thinking and other convergent information literacy skills, has become a significant talent in
our technology-focused world. Nevertheless, many shortcomings still exist in this regard. Incredible as it may seem, our EFL/ESL
university students need to raise their critical awareness of how ideology shapes the verbal and visual communication modes (Gee,
1996; Juraité, 2019; Kellner, 2006; Unsworth, 2001). They need to be able to “critically analyse relationships between media and
audiences, information and power” (Kellner & Share, 2007, p.60), seeking a proper balance between their personal mental models and
their shared social attitudes towards specific issues, aware that diversity of ideologically-based opinions is the rule (Abdel-Raheem,
2020).
Visual and critical thinking literacies are converging towards digital literacy which, Goldstein (2016) explains, is closely related to
the modern participatory culture – “today’s literacies are about encouraging the audience not just to be passive consumers but active
contributors of their own digital experience” (p.4). This implies that digital media allow us to engage in agentive collective functions
and increase our individual agency by providing us with unlimited opportunities to connect, share and find information and take
action (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2012). However, it is also worth noting that digital structures shape individual agency on social
media platforms, combining these opportunities for actions with impositions on those actions (Sun, 2009; Weber, 2013). The
importance of the social, political, cultural and economic context that guides and shapes individual actions cannot be ignored either
(Fenton & Barassi, 2011; Rosenbaum, 2019).
The digital era demands the acquisition of literacy skills that “expand beyond the mere ability to read, view and (re)produce
multimedia texts and videos” (O’Halloran, Tan, & Marissa, 2017, p. 11). Digital literacy comprises technical, audio-visual, behav­
ioural, critical and social skills that enable users to learn, communicate, socialise and contribute in the digital space (Hobbs, 2017).
Being literate today involves understanding and interpreting digital ensembles to make meaning out of the different modes that
determine our social dimension: visual, verbal, written, gestural or musical (Goldstein, 2016).
Given these premises, the present paper strives to account for the need to approach 21st century university students as reflective
viewer and thinker readers, which implies the previous identification of their critical and visual literacy needs in digital learning
environments. On this account, we carried out a classroom-based study that comprised three main stages. First, we developed i) an
integrated visual and critical literacy-based pedagogical framework and then, based on this framework, we designed ii) a pedagogical
proposal aimed at enhancing our students’ visual and critical thinking skills:

i) The pedagogical framework stemmed from the definition of visual and thinking reading as a complex phenomenon that comprises
four reader roles – Code Breaker, Text Participant, Text User, and Text Analyst – which are embedded into three textual di­
mensions – perceptual, structural, and ideological. Our focus was on the intersection of the visual and critical thinking approaches
(Hattwig, Bussert, Medaile, & Burgess, 2012; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000, 2005, 2012; Serafini, 2012, 2014, 2017; Unsworth, 2008,
2017) and their usefulness to provide a unique opportunity for learners to develop a better understanding of texts at the same time
as they become more effective viewers and thinkers.
ii) The pedagogical proposal was aimed at 52 fourth-year undergraduates on the Degree in English Studies at the Complutense
University of Madrid during the academic year 2018-19. The proposal revolved around the use of memes, which were selected for
their ability to create multiple opportunities to activate critical visual literacy reading skills in the EFL/ESL university classroom.
Memes are “virally-transmitted cultural artefacts with socially shared norms and values” (Shifman, 2014, p.15) that can be defined
as “socially recognised types of communicative actions” (Orlikowski & Yates, 1994, p. 541). Their production, consumption and
spread, address agency within a social system and these are further enabled by memory traces in the tradition of Giddens’ concept
of structuration (Wiggins & Bowers, 2015). Structuration Theory is used to explore the nature of user agency on social media
platforms and the extent to which this agency is constrained or enabled by the interplay between the systems and structures that
guide social media use (Rosenbaum, 2019).

To gather data for the analysis following the implementation of the pedagogical proposal,

iii) we designed a rubric for identifying and quantifying the viewing and thinking reading needs of our students.

Accordingly, we tested four specific research questions, each of them focused on one of the four reader roles – Code Breaker, Text
Participant, Text User, and Text Analyst – that we adapted from Luke and Freebody’s (1999) model by embedding them into three
textual dimensions – perceptual, structural, and ideological. The questions comprise both descriptive and explanatory dimensions:

• RQ1. Code Breakers: To what extent are 21 st century ELF/ESL university students able to decode the visual symbols in texts?
• RQ2. Text Participants: To what extent are 21 st century ELF/ESL university students able to activate their background knowledge
and personal experience, and thereby approach visual texts?
• RQ3. Text Users: To what extent are 21 st century ELF/ESL university students aware of the social and cultural functions of visual
texts?
• RQ4. Text Analysts: To what extent are 21 st century ELF/ESL university students able to identify bias and to think analytically
when using visual texts?

The following lines describe the pedagogical framework, the meme-based pedagogical proposal and the rubric used in the
classroom-based study carried out to detect our 21st century students’ viewing and thinking difficulties. Then, in the following sections,

2
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

the viewing and thinking needs of the students are detected, the results of the study are analysed and discussed, and some preliminary
conclusions on the pedagogical implications of the paper are drawn.

2. Literature review

2.1. Towards a framework for the dual acquisition of viewing and thinking skills in digital learning environments

It has been explained that the present paper strives to identify our 21st century university students’ weaknesses as reflective viewer
and thinker readers in digital learning environments. On this account, we carried out a classroom-based study that consisted in
developing an integrated visual and critical literacy-based pedagogical framework and applying it to implement a pedagogical pro­
posal aimed at enhancing our students’ visual and critical thinking skills.
Fig. 1 illustrates the framework developed, which stands at the intersection of two primary dimensions: a visual one, endorsed by
the models based on visual culture, semiotics and visual grammar (Serafini, 2012, 2014) and a critical one, drawn upon the models of
critical multiliteracy pedagogy with an emphasis on critical thinking (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000; Luke & Freebody, 1999; Serafini, 2012).
Drawing from the tradition of multiliteracy pedagogies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000; Luke & Freebody, 1999,
2005, 2012; Serafini, 2012, 2014), we start from the premise that reading is a complex phenomenon based on four fundamental roles:
Code Breaker, Text Participant, Text User and Text Analyst. Also, assuming the need to activate visual literacy elements to approach
texts in digital environments, our framework follows Serafini’s models (2012, 2014) for the analysis of visual elements. These are
focused on three textual dimensions: 1) perceptual, 2) structural, and 3) ideological. The perceptual dimension deals with images and
consists in navigating and naming the elements of texts that are visually perceived (Panofsky, 1955); the structural dimension is based
on the analysis of visual grammar and design elements (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996); the ideological dimension includes the analysis
of context, culture and history, approaching text and image as cultural artefacts (O’Toole, 1994).
The visual and critical approach to texts is therefore conceived as a process that involves four reader roles which are embedded into
three textual dimensions – perceptual, structural, and ideological – each of them integrating both visual and critical dimensions
(Fig. 2). Accordingly, each of the readers’ roles include both visual and critical thinking subskills that students need to develop to
become efficient readers: from noticing the visuals (code breakers) and analysing visual grammar and design (text participants) to
exploring images from a socio-semiotic perspective (text user and text analyst). A detailed explanation about the procedures followed
to integrate the four reader roles and the three textual dimensions in the model described in Fig. 2 can be seen in the Materials and
Procedures section.
It has also been explained that this framework was used to design a pedagogical proposal based on the use of memes which was
implemented in our EFL/ESL university classroom as part of a classroom-based study aimed at identifying our 21st students’ weak­
nesses as reflective viewer and thinker readers in digital learning environments.
Memes are multimodal “products of contemporary participatory digital culture (Jenkins, 2006; Milner, 2013; Shifman, 2013;
Wiggins & Bowers, 2015) that require subcultural literacy (Milner, 2012; Miltner, 2014), created as they are by repurposing items from
digital and gaming culture, as well as popular culture at large (Knobel & Lankshear, 2007)” (Nissenbaum & Shifman, 2017, p.485).
They borrow signifiers from movies, ads, games, and street art and serve a wide variety of social, cultural, and political purposes
(Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Miltner, 2014; Nissenbaum & Shifman, 2017) and thus contribute to enhancing our students’ capital
knowledge of the target culture; a capital which is valuable because it is contested, as memes are inherently “unstable cultural forms in
irreconcilable inner contradiction between convention and innovation” that keep the “community’s shared culture at the centre of
discussion” (Nissenbaum & Shifman, 2017, p.498).
Abdel-Raheem (2020, p.309) has recently revisited a selection of examples to show that context model theory is the right
framework from which to approach memes. Context models explain many dimensions of contextualisation, including the personal and
thus individually variable interpretation of social constraints, and define the Common Ground (Clark, 1996) of the participants at each
moment in a discourse, what speakers, writers, or picture makers know or believe about the many types of knowledge of the

Fig. 1. Perceptual, structural, and ideological Interpretative Dimensions (adapted from Serafini, 2014).

3
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

Fig. 2. A framework for the dual acquisition of viewing and thinking skills in digital learning environments.

addressees, adapting their text or talk to such shared or mutual knowledge (Abdel-Raheem, 2020, p.304).
Far from lessening the importance of context model theory, which has not been translated into a pedagogical framework to date, we
have developed a specific pedagogical framework for designing teaching materials aimed at the dual acquisition of viewing and
thinking skills in digital learning environments, for the formation of visual critical readers in EFL/ESL university contexts.

2.2. Visual readers

Visual literacy has become an essential learning skill that involves the generation of multimodal meaning. It integrates written text,
visual images and design elements from various perspectives, which determines the way in which the message will be perceived as they
articulate how its meaning can be socially and cultural mediated (Mcluhan, 1962). So much so that Apkon (2013) has identified this
literacy as the “dominant expressive language and form of the age” (p.13) after Burmark (2002) referred to it as “the primary literacy of
the 21 st century:” “it’s no longer enough to be able to read and write. Our students live in a visually rich world where they
permanently encounter and create meaning and knowledge through images. They must learn to process both words and pictures. They
must be able to move gracefully and fluently between text and images, between literal and figurative worlds” (p.1).
However, most academic settings continue to underestimate the need to train learners to approach multimodal texts effectively.
The reality seems to be that hardly any attention is paid to the development of visual literacy in the classroom (Goldstein, 2016;
Metros, 2008; Pauwels, 2008; Yenawine, 2014), even though this literacy has been an object of study since the late 1960s.
Definitions of visual literacy emphasized the interpretation of images – the ability to interpret and understand information pre­
sented in pictorial or graphic images (Considine & Haley, 1992; Wileman, 1993) – as well as the “ability to find meaning in imagery”
(Yenawine, 1997, p.1) in the nineties. Some time afterwards, visual literacy was reconceptualized as a social practice as much as an
individual and cognitively based ability or set of competencies.
At the dawn of the new millennium, Sturken and Cartwright (2001) asserted that meanings were “produced not in the heads of the
viewers so much as through a process of negotiation among individuals within a particular culture, and between individuals and the
artefacts, images, and texts created by themselves and others” (p.4). In the same vein, Rose (2011) proposed a critical visual meth­
odology informed by critical theories and cultural studies that was founded on “an approach that thinks about the visual in terms of the
cultural significance, social practices and power relations in which it is embedded; and that means thinking about the power relations
that produce, are articulated through, and can be challenged by, ways of seeing and imaging” (p.3).
Some years later, the focus shifted to the importance of visual media in contemporary culture, particularly as a communication tool.
Metros (2008) theoretically formalized visual literacy as the ability to interpret visual messages as well as to “encode and compose
meaningful visual communications” (p.103). This involved further abilities to visualize internally, communicate visually and read and
interpret visual images (Mitchell, 2008). The author defended visual literacy as “‘connoisseurship’: rich, highly cultivated and trained
experiences and techniques of visual observation” (Metros, 2008, pp. 13–14).
It is only very recently that studies on learners’ use of visual materials in Higher Education have been conducted (Kedra, 2018).
Most of this research proves an unexpected need for visual literacy development among university students: “… students’ visual
competencies are not always aligned with faculty expectations or academic demands” (Hattwig et al., 2012, p. 64). Appropriate use
and production of images continue to be a challenge for many EFL/ESL university students today since they “tend to exhibit less
comfort and skill with observing, interpreting, analyzing and discussing visual information than they do with textual information, and
do so with less specificity” (Hattwig et al., 2012, p. 65). This reveals that visual literacy skills in literacy programmes are not receiving
enough attention and, as a result, the multimodal reading experience that should be expected in the 21st century (Unsworth, 2017) is
insufficient.

4
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

Historically, attempts have been multiple to create a robust framework for ensuring interpretations of visual works of art: ranging
from theories based only on judging the images for what they are (e.g. “good eye theory,” Feldman, 1987) to theories that include
specific social, historical, and political contexts, being subject to the knowledge and experiences of the viewers (e.g. O’Toole, 1994;
Panofsky, 1955; Rose, 2001; Serafini, 2010). By way of illustration, Panofsky (1955) developed one of the first frameworks for
acknowledging the literal details of images that included interpretative processes associated with the ideological and cultural
meanings of such images. Forty years later, O’Toole (1994) suggested four different ways of analysing visual forms, including a se­
miotic approach focused on representational, interpersonal, and compositional metafunctions, as set by Halliday (1978). In the same
vein, Rose (2001) defined three dimensions to be taken into consideration when interpreting visual constructs: 1) technological – any
form designed to be looked at, 2) compositional – formal structures and strategies, and 3) social-economic, social, and political re­
lations, institutions, and practices that surround the image. Based on the extensive research in the field, Serafini (2010) developed his
tripartite framework for interpreting multimodal texts addressing the perceptual, structural, and ideological dimensions of inter­
pretation ten years ago (Fig. 3):

2.3. Critical readers

EFL/ESL learners need to develop skills to understand hidden or implicit meanings, to separate facts from opinions, to examine the
characteristics of a narrative from multiple points of view, to reconstruct images from details and to apply their previous knowledge to
other aspects of life. These include analysis, synthesis, argumentation, interpretation, evaluation, problem-solving and reasoning,
among all the other skills that comprise the critical thinking process (Brunt, 2005; Facione, 2007).
Critical thinking has become extremely popular in educational settings over the past two decades despite being a relatively old
concept drawing from Paulo Freire’s philosophy (1970). Critical thinking-based practices included multiple sources of knowledge and
various ways of knowing, in addition to multiple assessment methods (Breuning, 2005). Educators were expected to enable learners to
behave as the active agents of their transformation through effective communication and peer learning (Kincheloe, 2008).
In the field of EFL/ESL teaching, critical thinking dated from the 1990s, when an increasing number of researchers promoted the
analysis of the relevant socio-historical and political aspects of the language learning process and encouraged the reorganization of the
language curriculum (Aliakbari & Faraji, 2011; Dooley, Exley, & Poulus, 2016; Hayik, 2015; Huh, 2016; Benesch, 2009; Dunca­
n-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Izadinia, 2011; among others). Since then, many other studies have advocated the inclusion of critical
media literacy skills in the curriculum to develop the thinking competence (Tisdell, 2008; Wade, 2014). Not surprisingly, “learning to
think critically is among the most desirable goals of formal schooling” today (Abrami et al., 2008, p.1102).
This has resulted in the development of frameworks of critical multiliteracy pedagogy aimed at encouraging the functional and
critical analysis of texts as part of the reading process. These include Kalantzis and Cope’s Critical Multiliteracies Model (2000),
Unsworth’s Three Dimension Literate Practice Model (2001), or Luke and Freebody’s Four Resources Model (1999), which merits
special consideration. Striving to involve “a theoretical and practical attitude towards texts and the social world” (Luke, 2000, p.458),
the Four Resources Model (1999) comprises four specific reader roles that enable the social and textual realms to converge and make
meaning: 1) Code Breaker, 2) Text Participant, 3) Text User and 4) Text Analyst.
As Code Breakers, learners need to be able to decode the symbols that form the text by activating their previous knowledge of the
social, political and economic context shaping and guiding the activation of those symbols. They are also expected to activate their
personal experiences and their previous knowledge to interact as Text Participants. The role of Text Users involves their awareness of
the purpose of the text, which is necessary to understand cultural differences and social functions. Text Analysts are expected to
identify bias and think analytically.
Drawing on research on visual culture, critical media studies, grammars of visual design and multimodality, Serafini (2012, 2014)

Fig. 3. Viewing/Thinking Reading Model for multimodal texts in digital environments.

5
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

expanded Luke and Freebody’s Four Resources Model (1999) into four new social practices that are characteristic of the
viewing-reading process: 1) navigating, 2) interpreting, 3) designing and 4) interrogating. As navigators, readers should be able to
decode not only written texts but also non-linear structures, hypertexts, visual images and multimodal compositional structures.
Readers as interpreters are expected to develop interpretive repertoires that address visual images and design elements from political,
historical and cultural perspectives. As designers, they need not only to construct meaning, but also to design the reading path that is
motivated by their interests, needs, and experiences. Consequently, readers are involved in the construction of the actual texts to be
read and interpreted.
Serafini’s (2012, 2014) models reinforce the need for a dual model – both visual and critical – to contribute to enhancing our
learners’ acquisition of multimodal skills such as interpreting visual images and design elements, inferring, asking questions, and
summarizing.

3. Detecting visual and critical needs in 21st century EFL/ESL university students: A classroom-based study

Following our framework, we conducted a classroom-based study designed to test the four research questions that we posed in the
introduction. In this vein, a meme-based activity and rubric were developed for the implementation and assessment of visual and
critical thinking-based activities in the EFL/ESL university classroom to detect our 21st century students’ visual and critical needs in
digital learning environments. The participants, materials and procedures of the study are described below.

3.1. Participants

The study was conducted with 52 fin. l year students on the Degree in English Studies at the Complutense University of Madrid in
Spain, who were following our English in the Media course during the academic year 2018–19. All of them were native speakers of
Spanish aged between 21 and 23. Since this was the final year of their degree, many of them had reached a high level of English
language, literature, history and culture (C1.2 according to the Common European Framework for Languages, CEFR, Council of
Europe, 2001). They had also been exposed to different types of discourse, both at a receptive and productive level. The course aimed
to bridge EFL/ESL teaching with Pragmatics and Semantics by introducing students to the language of mass media through crucial
issues taking place in major English-speaking countries.

3.2. Materials and procedures

Qualitative and quantitative methodologies were combined in the study. Students were first asked to complete a short demographic
questionnaire on their educational background, their level of English and their degree of familiarity with memes. Next, they were
asked to do a meme-based activity (Appendix A) that we had previously developed according to our pedagogical framework (Fig. 1).
The questionnaire and the meme-based task were administered through a Google form app as an out-of-class activity to ensure that
they were completed individually and confidentially. To avoid the potential bias in the respondents’ answers, we framed the questions
in an open-ended format preventing the participants from simply agreeing or disagreeing, and guiding them to provide truthful and
honest answers.
The activity was assessed according to the rubric that we had also developed to identify our students’ needs (Appendix B)2 .
Inductive thematic analysis was first conducted to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data obtained. Then data analysis was
done in three steps. First, we scrutinized the data, thereby to become familiarized with the information collected, having ideas about
what is in the data and what is interesting about them (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A second step involved the initial production of
qualitative codes: ideas and keywords were color-coded and grouped according to the set of skills corresponding to each of the criteria
comprising the rubric (Creswell, 2014). Finally, each criterion was scaled as exemplary, satisfactory, below satisfactory, or unsatis­
factory based on the students’ performance as reflective viewers and thinkers able to read digital texts. To prevent subjectivity and
bias, the responses were analysed and discussed by two experts separately.
Once our students’ responses had been analysed qualitatively and scaled according to the rubric criteria, a quantitative study was
conducted with the help of SPSS 25 (2017). Raw data from each set of questions – corresponding to each of the four reader roles – were
condensed and recategorised to assess our students’ overall performance as Code Breakers, Text Participants, Text Users and Text
Analysts across three dimensions: perceptual, structural and ideological.
A detailed description of the meme-based activity and the rubric used in the study is given below.

3.2.1. The meme-based activity

The activity contained a series of memes on Trump’s inauguration day (Kurtzman, 2017) and was uploaded to the SurveyMonkey
platform as an assignment (Appendix A). These memes were chosen to deal with the issue of current politics in the US, the Trump
government and its no/popularity in our English in the Media class. Students had to observe the images and answer a set of open-ended
questions that had been organized into four sections according to the four reader roles proposed by Luke and Freebody (1999), and

2
The assessment rubric was developed by the authors of the article based on Luke and Freebody’s Four Resources Model (1999) and Serafini’s
model (2012, 2014) for the analysis of visual elements. To ensure the validity of the assessment tool, the rubric was tested and piloted by the two
researchers independently. Whenever doubts or disagreements arose, the collaboration of a third independent researcher was requested.

6
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

embedded into three textual dimensions – perceptual, structural, and ideological – each of them integrating both visual and critical
dimensions:

1) Perceptual dimension:

As Code Breakers, students were asked to examine two images: a real photo of the Mount National Memorial – a sculpture of four
American presidents carved into the granite face of Mount Rushmore – and a meme-based adaptation of the same photo that had been
created on the occasion of Donald Trump’s Inauguration Day. They answered questions about the foregrounded elements and the
position of the image concerning the written text focusing on its denotative meaning. No sociocultural, historical, or political aspects
were taken into consideration at this step.

2) Structural dimension:

As Text Participants, students were asked to observe three pictures representing crucial elements of the USA culture – the first
presidents, the USA flag, and the picture of Trump wrapped in the USA flag – and answer some questions aimed at activating their
background knowledge, thereby using the cultural resources that could contribute to the understanding of the meme. We intended to
make students reflect on the cultural meanings or messages (connotations) of the images, both personally and culturally.

3) Ideological dimension:

As Text Users, students had to observe two other memes that depicted the same social phenomenon from different perspectives, as
well as to reflect if they added anything to their understanding of the first meme. They also had to discuss the possible social functions
of the meme and how these functions affect its structural organization. The expected effect of the meme on the readership was part of
the discussion too. This role draws from the idea that visual images do not exist in a vacuum; therefore, particular social practices
should be taken into consideration for their interpretation.
As Text Analysts, students were asked to describe the personality traits, expected interests and values of both the hypothetical
author and intended audience of the memes. They also had to take part in a debate about the possible socio-political intentions of the
texts. Finally, we asked them to create their memes in response to the ones given to check their understanding of the significant social
and political forces behind the texts.

3.2.2. The quality rubric

To assess the visual and critical needs of our students, we developed a Viewing and Thinking Scoring Rubric (Appendix B) in line
with the framework of four reading roles that had been previously developed (Fig. 4). The rubric was first piloted for clarity by a
volunteer group of 10 university students. Upon piloting, additional modifications were introduced to ensure reliability.
The rubric included four main criteria related to the four reader roles included in the framework. As shown in Fig. 4, each of the
roles was subdivided into the two subskills that learners were expected to develop to become proficient visual and critical thinker
readers.
The evaluation of each of the criteria followed a four-level scale: exemplary, satisfactory, below satisfactory and unsatisfactory
(Appendix B).

Fig. 4. Viewing and Thinking Scoring Rubric criteria.

7
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

Table 1
Students’ overall performance as critical visual readers.
Degree of students’ overall performance as multimodal readers (%) Unsatisfactory Below satisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary

Students’ performance as code breakers 0 0 45.4 54.6

Students’ performance as text participants 0 35 61.2 3.8
Students’ performance as text users 3.8 26.2 62.3 7.7
Students’ performance as text analysts 15.4 24 59.1 2,5

4. Results and analysis

Following the structure of the evaluation rubric, the results section starts with a short overview of students’ performance as Code
Breakers, Text Participants, Text Users and Text Analysts. In continuation, each of the readers’ roles is examined in details, and
students’ needs as visual and critical readers are discussed.
As seen in the table below (Table 1), the results of the study revealed that students overall performance as 21st century visual and
critical readers could be evaluated as satisfactory as it was the most frequent category when evaluating students’ performance in all
four roles except for Code Breakers (where most of the students’ answers were evaluated as exemplary). The major difficulties were
found when dealing with the analysis of social practices and sociocultural contexts (students’ roles as Text Users and Text Analysts).
RQ1. Students’ performance as Code Breakers
Results revealed that most of the students were quite good at decoding the literal or descriptive meanings or messages conveyed by
the memes. All of their answers were classified as satisfactory or exemplary (45.4 % and 54.6 % respectively). In fact, 95.6 % of the
Code Breakers were able to fully describe the multimodal text identifying the foregrounded elements, the dominant colours, and the
position of the image concerning the text. Most of the respondents (about 80.2 %) also realized that the image was manipulated to
transmit a message for the readers (examples 2, 3 and 4). However, only a few of them could identify the place and the date (example
4). Though most learners could see that the date was an essential element of the multimodal text (examples 1 and 3), 43.8 % were still
unable to provide any further details about the relation between the written and the visual text (example 2 and 5).3

1 The most shocking thing was the fact that the rocks were covering their faces. The date was included to send the message to the
reader. I think that something terrible happened on that date that ashames the rocks. I think that the meme was created to report
something related to the four presidents of America. (Student nº 5)
2 From my point of view, the meme has been manipulated to transmit a message. It is clear if you compare it to the picture on the
right. The date is in a central position to attract the readers’ attention, but I do not know what it stands for. (Student nº 18)
3 The first things that caught my eye was the contrast of the colours (blue sky and grey rocks) and the size of the date in relation to the
image. I think no one wants this date to arrive, maybe its final exams time or the end of the holidays. The image of the meme is
obviously modified. (Student nº 3)
4 The first thing that caught my eye was the image of the meme as I have recognized this place. It is Mount Rushmore in the USA. So,
it was clear that the image was manipulated. I think that the date stands for Donald Trump inauguration as a president. (Student nº
7)
5 I do not see the reason why this particular date was added to the picture. It does not say anything to me. (Student nº 2)

RQ2. Students’ performance as Text Participants

Though most of the students performed satisfactorily (61.2 %) as text participants, there was a high percentage of them who
performed below satisfactorily (35.0 %). Many of them had difficulties in identifying ordinary subject matters, themes, and concepts.
They could not fully explain how humor had been created or how it had been represented in the memes. Likewise, many students had
difficulties in describing the structure and the social functions of the texts.
A good number of Text Participants (65.4 %) could identify the main characters of the meme and describe their role in the history of
the USA. However, within this 65.4 %, only 3.8 % were able to establish a relationship between the picture and the topic of the meme
(examples 7 and 9). The remaining 26.9 % could only describe such a relation partially (examples 8 and 9).
About 55 % of the respondents were able to describe the means used to create a humorous effect and to see the ambiguity of the
images presented (example 10).

6 All three pictures are related to the central values of the USA, those one that deal with freedom and democracy. The men on the
first picture are Lincoln and Washington. They gave hope to people. Lincoln ended slavery and Washington was the first
president of the United States. They are also memorialized in the Mount Rushmore. (Student nº 17)

3
In all of the cases, the examples reflect the students’ original words, which have not been rephrased or corrected.

8
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

7 The men on the first picture are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, the USA most famous presidents. They also appear on
the first meme. As far as I know, they did a lot for the country and the people in the USA, and now it looks like they had done it in
vain. (Student nº 7)
8 I am not really sure about who these men are. I think they could be Lincoln and Washington. Their images are related to the
meme because Trump and them, have been the US presidents. (Student nº 16)
9 They are Abraham Lincoln and another US president, I guess. But I am not very good at history. I think Lincoln was the first
president of the USA but I am not sure. (Student nº 18)
10 I associate the flag of the USA with the values of freedom, equality, solidarity and justice. These are the values that the first
American presidents were fighting for. I think that these values are now lost, and that what makes the meme sound ironic. What
is more, it seems rather ironic to see president Trump being involved into the same flag as the one defended by Lincoln and
Washington. (Student nº 2)

RQ3. Students’ performance as Text Users

Regarding the students’ performance as Text Users, though most of their answers were coded as satisfactory and exemplary (62.3 %
and 7.7 %, respectively), there was still a high percentage who performed unsatisfactorily or below satisfactorily (3.8 % and 26.2 %,
respectively). These results point to the difficulties that the students might have experienced in analysing the social practices and the
social contexts of the memes.
Almost 70 % of the Text Users could easily identify the attitude of the author of the memes as disagreement, indignation or dislike
even if they were not fully able to describe the structure or the social function of the texts (examples 11 and 12). Curiously enough, 38.5
% were unable to give their opinion on the social function of the texts, and 15.4 % showed disagreement with the author’s intentions
based on their respect for democracy and their sensitivity towards the topic (examples 13 and 14). Only 7.7 % reported that they had
fully understood the question.
Regarding the three additional memes offered to the respondents, almost half of the respondents could clearly see that they were
complimentary to the first meme, providing some further details on public opinion towards Trump’s inauguration (example 15).

11 The author criticizes Trump’s coming to power and he shows his disappointment. Of course, it coincides with my personal
attitude. Irony is used as an important tool that helps the author to express his point of view. (Student nº 22)
12 The author wants to show that Trump is trying to make really big changes in an unfair way. To do this, he attract readers’
attention using humour and irony. I do agree with this idea, it is not fair at all. (Student nº 5)
13 The author seems to be against Trump’s election, and it is OK for me as I respect democracy. I am not sure about the structure of
the meme. (Student nº 7)
14 The author is laughing at Donald Trump’s attitude and his proposals as the US president. The author’s position doesn’t coincide
with my personal attitude towards Donald Trump. It seems like a joke in a poor taste. (Student nº 6)
15 In respect of the other memes, they help us better understand people’s feelings and emotions towards the era of Trump. It seems
that people not only ashamed, but also frightened as his government may bring the whole country back. (Student nº 2)

RQ4. Students’ performance as Text Analysts

As Text Analysts, most of the students performed satisfactorily and exemplarily (59.1 % and 2.5 %, respectively). However, it is
worth noting that 15.4 % performed unsatisfactorily and the remaining 24 % did so below satisfactorily, being mostly puzzled when
asked to examine the social meaning of the actors and the events represented in the texts.
Most Text Analysts (61.6 %) were able to identify the author as either an anti-Trump democrat, an immigrant, or a democratic
youth with an open mind and a good sense of humour (examples 16 and 17). Also, 46.2 % considered that the meme was aimed at anti-
Trump voters and Clinton supporters (example 17). Nevertheless, a relatively high 15.4 % pointed to Trump’s supporters as the
possible political force behind the meme (examples 18) and 23.1 % considered that the message could have been aimed at any political
force. The remaining 15.4 % was unable to identify any particular target addressee and opted for vague answers (example 19). Only 30
% referred to the ambiguous nature of the pictures, which could have been used in different political contexts (example 20). These
results reveal important differences among the participants’ interpretations.

16 The author of the meme probably belongs to one of the numerous groups of people that Trump is denigrating, like Mexicans,
Muslims or women. The author tries to depict the Trump’s ignorance about tolerance. (Student nº 22)
17 I think that the author of the meme is a progressive person, someone who is interested in politics, definitely not a Trump fan.
He/She should also be someone who struggles for the principles of liberty and equality in all spheres of life. That is why the
intended audience should be those people who stand against Trump. (Student nº 9)
18 As regards the target audience of the meme, I think it is intended to Trump supporters who think he is doing everything well. For
example, it may be directed to the population of one of the racist-thinking states of the USA. (Student nº 5)
19 These kind of memes are really common nowadays, so it could be directed to any social or political group. (Student nº 11)

9
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

20 For me both images sound ironic, so I would consider them as a kind of mockery of Trump as a president with superpowers.
Nevertheless, I think that the pictures can also be used for pro-Trump advertising as there are many people that see him as a real
superhero. (Student nº 3)

Regarding the meme-design activity, participants revealed that they had experienced difficulties in expressing themselves through
images. Opinions were divided between those who showed creativity and willingness to participate in the project and those who
showed reluctance to do the activity. Only 55 % agreed to develop and share their memes. Despite the low participation, 54.6 % of the
students who agreed to create their memes performed well and were ingenious when providing their replies to the first meme. Most of
the respondents associated the figure of Trump to the European leaders and political forces that represent Trump’s ideas in Europe.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study aims at contributing to the emerging body of literature about students’ critical and visual literacy needs in digital
learning environments. Specifically, in the EFL/ESL university classroom. Based on established frameworks for traditional literacy
skills, it develops and implements a theoretical framework for the dual acquisition of viewing and thinking skills, as an important part
of the digital media literacy skills that are expected from 21st century students. In line with the results of the classroom-based study that
we conducted with 52 students at the Complutense University of Madrid in Spain, this concluding section has answered the research
questions of the study. Despite the importance gained by visual and critical thinking literacy in recent years (Jewitt, 2014; O’Halloran
et al., 2017), the overall results of this study confirm that our 21st century learners still lack the critical visual literacy reading skills
expected. Essential needs were detected at all the levels of our framework. Nevertheless, the “Text Participant” (Structural dimension)
and the “Text Analyst” (Ideological dimension) have proved to be the most problematic levels; the first involving the interpretation of
the cultural meanings of the text, and the second focusing on the identification of its supposed intentions and the design of new memes
in response to the first.
The processing of multimodal texts remains on a superficial level. Our 21st century EFL/ESL university students tend to rely on the
visual prompts that facilitate their decoding of the superficial layer of texts (Code Breakers) while they are unable to move into higher
levels of analysis. Further interaction with the text is usually complex as it involves the activation of the students’ personal experiences
as well as their background knowledge (Text Participants). The “Text User” and “Text Analyst” levels are even more demanding as
these require comprehension of the nature of the texts and their social functions. Results show that the pragmatic and critical elements
of multimodal texts like memes often go unnoticed.
These findings go in line with the latest research on the development of critical visual literacy skills as visual communication is
becoming more and more important and an increasing number of decisions are being made based on visual information (Nielsen,
2004). Many are the scholars who complain about students’ insufficient preparation in this area. Takaya (2016) highlights the lack of
visual literacy skills among university students, as well as an urgent necessity of equipping EFL/ESL students with the ability to analyse
and understand visual images with global connections. In the same vein, Serafini and Ladd (2008) insist on the necessity of moving
beyond the literal level of meaning that requires readers infer from other texts and contexts to make sense of what they read and view.
Moreover, Sturken and Cartwright (2001) claim that images are produced within a system of social power and ideology; therefore the
capacity to affect us as viewers is dependent on the broader cultural meaning they evoke and social, political and cultural contexts in
which they are viewed. That is why “helping readers interrogate the meaning potential of the semiotic and multimodal resources of a
text is an important consideration on today’s educational environment” (Serafini, 2012, p. 160).
In this regard, it is worth highlighting that memes play an important role in bridging this gap. Being a relatively new genre, memes
are gaining popularity among language teachers and educators. Recent research on the use of memes in the language classroom has
opened the path towards new methods and strategies in language teaching, helping students to build their critical literacy skills in the
field of memes and popular culture (see Harvey & Palese, 2018; Stones, 2017). This phenomenon, also known as critical memetic
literacy, refers to the ability to engage with and question all parts of the meme (re)production and consumption cycle. Though being a
powerful combination of critical media literacy (and all of its related fields, e.g., media literacy, digital literacy, visual literacy; see
Beach, 2018; Hoechsmann & Poyntz, 2012; Silva, 2016) and memetics (see Gunders & Brown, 2010; Shifman, 2014), its potential in
language teaching needs still to be explored.
Methodological frameworks and practical applications involving the use of memes in the language classroom are still very limited.
To give but a few examples, Stones (2017) provides examples of the use of memes as part of a visual rhetoric culture that allows the
instructor to “cement the paradigmatic shift students need to experience in order to process the implications of our visual culture”
(p.141). Valdez, Navera, and Garinto (2020) offers a classroom-based experience with memes as a suitable artifact for critical inquiry
through which learners develop the skills of evaluating, interrogating, and interpreting the information presented in memes. Domí­
nguez Romero and Bobkina (2017) shares a workshop-based pedagogical proposal focused on the use of memes to enhance students’
understanding of the key role that visual literacy plays in the second and foreign language acquisition. On this basis, the present article
aims at providing an alternative pedagogical framework to be followed by teachers willing to enhance digital media literacy skills in a
language classroom.
The pedagogical implications of the study point to the need for an emphasis on critical thinking and visual literacy skills in the EFL/
ESL classroom. As images come to dominate the world around us, university EFL students need to be exposed to materials like memes,
which stimulate their understanding of the people and events that shape the world today. As printed monomodal texts still dominate
the reality of higher education curricula, it is crucial to engage students into a new set of strategies, vocabularies, and processes for
enhancing students’ critical visual literacy skills and global comprehension. Teachers should contemplate the use of multimodal visual

10
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

texts to prepare students for 21st century communication, incorporating different techniques and activities that would be beneficial to
them for developing skills related to critical thinking and visual literacy, such as analysing the role of visual elements in the text or
examining the importance of social and cultural circumstances in the production and reception of the multimodal text. Teachers must
consider incorporating art, media, and semiotic theories and interpretative strategies into the EFL/ESL classroom to get out of the
traditional boundaries of educational course work and curricula. This requires a rethinking of traditional reading experiences that
dominate today’s university classes.
To conclude, it must be admitted that the limitation in size of the sample and the limitation on the range and topic of memes chosen
for the analysis renders these results merely preliminary and in need of further research based on a larger sample. However, pre­
liminary results may also shed light on what future research might confirm. Some issues in this discussion become implications that
should be taken into consideration for future research. For example, concerns detected regarding the deficiencies and difficulties of
21st ELF/ESL university students to decode multimodal texts are to be addressed. In particular, the need for further training to enhance
our students’ ability to read and to understand multimodal ensembles in the EFL/ESL classroom is to be considered. Especially in the
case of higher levels of critical visual literacy reading skills, including both the critical and the visual dimensions.

Appendix A. The meme-based activity

Detecting Thinking/Viewing Needs in EFL/ESL Learners4

1. Have a look at picture 1. What is the first thing that catches your eye? What do you see in the picture? Why do you think that the
written text has been added to the image? Why do you think that the written text occupies a bottom central position? How do the
written and the visual texts relate to convey the message? Do you think that this is a real photo? Why? Why not?

Now, have a look at picture 2 and compare it with the one above. Which one is the real photo? Which one has been manipulated?
Justify your answer.

2. Have a look at the photos. What do they tell us about USA and their values? Who are the two men on the second picture? What do
you know about them? How are these photos related to the topic of the first picture? How do they contribute to the creation of humour
in the first picture?

4
Memes retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/donald-trump-inauguration-memes-4124393

11
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

3. Memes are a relatively new genre. What do you think is their social function? How can this social function affect their structure?
Discuss the structure and the possible social functions of the meme on picture 1. Have a look at three other memes below. They depict
the same social phenomenon. Do they add anything new to the message of the first meme? If so, what do they add to the effect of the
first meme on the readership?

4. Describe the kind of person who could have created the meme on the first picture and think of their possible interests and values.
Where do you think this meme might have been published? Who do you think is the target audience/readership of this meme? Describe
the type of person who could be interested in reading this text. Could you think of any social or political forces that could be interested
in launching this message? Now have a look at the following pictures presenting Trump as a superhero. Do they convey the message of
the first meme?

12
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

5. Create your meme in response to the first one. Describe the intention behind your meme, your possible target audience, and the
place where you would publish it.

Appendix B. Viewing Thinking Reading Rubric

Steps in multimodal reading Exemplary Satisfactory Below satisfactory Unsatisfactory

1. PERCEPTUAL DIMENSION - Reader as code breaker: Developing resources for code breaking.
• Examines the text describing • Examines the text • Examines the multimodal • Examines the multimodal • Shows a limited ability to
the foregrounded describing the foregrounded text describing the text describing the examine the multimodal text
elements, the dominant elements, the dominant foregrounded elements, the foregrounded elements, the describing the foregrounded
colors and the position of colors and the position of the dominant colors and the dominant colors and the elements, the dominant
the image in relation to the image in relation to the text. position of the image in position of the image in colors and the position of the
text. relation to the text. relation to the text. image in relation to the text.
• Examines the text in relation • Recognizes the text in • Recognizes the text in • Shows limited ability to • Has serious difficulties in
to the image and relation to the image and relation to the image recognize the text in relation recognizing the text in
recognizes visual and discusses visual and textual discussing visual and textual to the image discussing relation to the image
textual contents, the contents, the position of the contents, but has some visual and textual contents, discussing visual and textual
position of the text in text in relation to the image, problems to analyze the and has serious difficulties in contents, and fails to analyse
relation to the image, its its font and its size. position of the text in analyzing the position of the the position of the text in
font and its size. relation to the image, its font text in relation to the image, relation to the image, its font
and its size. its font and its size. and its size.
2. STRUCTURAL DIMENSION - Reader as text participant: Developing resources for making meaning.
• Discusses the background • Discusses the background • Discusses the background • Discusses the background • Shows a limited ability to
knowledge necessary to knowledge necessary to knowledge necessary to knowledge necessary to discuss the background
understand the understand the multimodal understand the multimodal understand the multimodal knowledge necessary to
multimodal text. text. text. text. understand the multimodal
text.
• Interprets the cultural • Interprets the cultural • Is not fully able to interpret • Has serious difficulties in • Fails to interpret the
meaning and possible meaning and possible the cultural meaning and interpreting the cultural cultural meaning and
readings that can be readings that can be possible readings that can be meaning and possible possible readings that can be
constructed for the text. constructed for the text. constructed for the text. readings that can be constructed for the text.
constructed for the text.
3. IDEOLOGICAL DIMENSION - Reader as text user: Developing resources for pragmatic practices.
• Discusses the social and • Discusses the social and • Discusses the social and • Discusses the social and • Shows a limited ability to
cultural functions of the cultural functions of the text cultural functions of the text cultural functions of the text discuss the social and
text and the way in which and analyzes the way in and analyzes the way in but shows limited ability to cultural functions of the text
these functions shape the which these cultural which these cultural analyze the way in which but has serious problems in
structural organization of functions shape the functions shape the these cultural functions analyzing the way in which
the text. structural organization of structural organization of shape the structural these cultural functions
the text. the text. organization of the text. shape the structural
organization of the text.
• Evaluates the influence of the • Evaluates the influence of
• Is not fully able to evaluate • Has serious problems in • Fails to evaluate the
text on the reader, the text on the reader, the influence of the text on evaluating the influence of influence of the text on the
including the description including the description of
the reader but is not fully the text on the reader and is reader and is not fully able to
of the overall impression, the overall impression, the
able to include the not fully able to include the include the description of
the way humor is created, way humor is created, and description of the overall description of the overall the overall impression, the
and the sociocultural the sociocultural impression, the way humor impression, the way humor way humor is created, or the
phenomenon represented phenomenon represented in is created, or the is created, or the sociocultural phenomenon
in the text as much as the the text as much as the sociocultural phenomenon sociocultural phenomenon represented in the text or the
reader’s personal attitude reader’s personal attituderepresented in the text or the represented in the text or the reader’s personal attitude
towards this phenomenon. towards this phenomenon. reader’s personal attitude reader’s personal attitude towards this phenomenon.
towards this phenomenon. towards this phenomenon.
4. IDEOLOGICAL DIMENSION - Reader as text analyst: Developing resources for critical practices.
• Discusses the possible • Discusses the possible • Discusses the possible • Shows limited ability to • Has serious problems in
identity of the author, identity of the author, identity of the author, discuss the possible identity discussing the possible
reflecting upon her/his reflecting upon her/his reflecting upon her/his of the author, reflecting identity of the author,
interests and values. interests and values. interests and values. upon her/his interests and reflecting upon her/his
values. interests and values.
• Analyzes the possible • Analyzes the possible • Is not fully able to analyze • Has serious problems in • Fails to analyze the
characteristics of the target characteristics of the target the possible characteristics analyzing the possible possible characteristics of
audience, reflecting upon audience, reflecting upon of the target audience, characteristics of the target the target audience,
their interests and values. their interests and values. reflecting upon their audience, reflecting upon its reflecting upon their
interests and values. interests and values. interests and values.

References

Abdel-Raheem, A. (2020). Mental model theory as a model for analysing visual and multimodal discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 303–320. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.012.

13
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and
dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084.
Aliakbari, M., & Faraji, E. (2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. Second international conference on humanities, historical and social sciences. IPEDR, 17,
77–85.
Apkon, S. (2013). The age of the image: Redefining literacy in a world of screens. Farrar: Strauss and Giroux.
Beach, R. (2018). How affordances of digital tool use foster critical literacy. In P. Albers (Ed.), Global conversations in literacy research: Digital and critical literacies (pp.
83–96). New York, NY: Routledge.
Benesch, S. (2009). Critical english for academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(2), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.
wbeal0278.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1369118x.2012.670661.
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Breuning, M. (2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(2), 106–122. https://doi.org/
10.1177/105382590502800205.
Brunt, B. A. (2005). Critical thinking in nursing: An integrated review. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-
20050301-05.
Burmark, L. (2002). Visual literacy: Learn to see, see to learn. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Considine, D. M., & Haley, G. E. (1992). Visual messages: Integrating imagery into instruction. Englewood: Teacher Idea Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you Do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of
multiliteracies: Learning by design (pp. 1–36). London: Palgrave.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danesi, M. (1985). The metaphorical extension of vision: A linguistic universal? Geolinguistics II (pp. 1–12).
Danesi, M. (1990). Thinking is seeing: Visual metaphors and the nature of abstract thought. Semiotica, 80(3/4), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1990.80.3-
4.221.
Domínguez Romero, E., & Bobkina, J. (2017). Teaching visual literacy through memes. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp.
59–71). Floriana: ELT Council.
Dooley, K., Exley, B., & Poulus, D. (2016). Research on critical EFL literacies: An illustrative analysis of some college level programs in Taiwan. English Teaching &
Learning, 40(4), 39–64.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang.
Dundes, A. (1972). Seeing is believing. Natural History, 81, 8–12.
Facione, P. A. (2007). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Milbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Feldman, E. B. (1987). Varieties of visual experience. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fenton, N., & Barassi, V. (2011). Alternative media and social networking sites: The politics of individuation and political participation. The Communication Review, 14,
179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597245.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gallup, G. G., & Cameron, P. A. (1992). Modality specific metaphors: Is our mental machinery “Colored” by a visual Bias? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 7(2), 93–98.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0702_3.
Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.
Goldstein, B. (2016). Visual literacy in English language teaching: Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gunders, J., & Brown, D. (2010). The complete idiot’s guide to memes. New York, NY: Alpha.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Hanegreefs, H. (2008). Los verbos de percepción visual. Un análisis de corpus en un marco cognitivo. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Harvey, L., & Palese, E. (2018). #NeverthelessMemesPersisted: Building critical memetic literacy in the classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(3),
259–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.898.
Hattwig, D., Bussert, K., Medaile, A., & Burgess, J. (2012). Visual literacy standards in higher education: New opportunities for libraries and student learning. Libraries
and the Academy, 13(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2013.0008.
Hayik, R. (2015). My critical literacy journey in a Middle Eastern EFL classroom: Insights and challenges. In B. Yoon, & R. Sharif (Eds.), Critical literacy practice:
Applications of critical theory in diverse settings (pp. 95–109). Cham: Springer.
Hobbs, R. (2017). Create to learn: Introduction to digital literacy. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoechsmann, M., & Poyntz, S. (2012). Media literacies: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Huh, S. (2016). Instructional model of critical literacy in an EFL context: Balancing conventional and critical literacy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(3),
210–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2016.1154445.
Izadinia, M. (2011). Incorporating the principles of critical pedagogy into a teacher efficacy measure. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/
10.5539/elt.v4n2p138.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Juraité, K. (2019). Teaching and learning the language of visual media. In S. Chistolini (Ed.), Decoding the disciplines in European institutions of higher education:
Intercultural and interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning (pp. 9–13). Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2000). A multiliteracies pedagogy: A pedagogical supplement. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the
design of social futures (pp. 239–248). South Yarra: Macmillan.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (Eds.). (2005). Learning by design.. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission and Common Ground.
Kedra, J. (2018). What does it mean to be visually literate? Examination of visual literacy definitions in a context of higher education. Journal of Visual Literacy, 37,
67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2018.1492234.
Kellner, D. (2006). Technological transformation, multiple literacies, and the revisioning of education. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The
International handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 241–268). Cham: Springer.
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry, 1, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-007-0004-2.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy: An introduction. Cham: Springer.
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2007). Online memes, affinities and cultural production. In M. Knobel, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A New literacies sampler (pp. 199–227). New
York: Peter Lang.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Kurtzman, D. (2017). Funniest Donald Trump inauguration memes. August 31 https://www.thoughtco.com/donald-trump-inauguration-memes4124393.
Lien, C. (2005). Verbs of visual perception in Taiwanese southern min: A cognitive approach shift of semantic domains. Language and Linguistics, 6(1), 109–132.
Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacies, 43(5), 448–461.

14
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. https://www.readingonline.org.
Manns, F. (1983). En marge des récits de la résurrection dans l’évangile de Jean: le verbe voir. Revue des Sciences Religieuses Strasbourg, 57(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/
10.3406/rscir.1983.2962.
Mcluhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy. The making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory Into Practice, 47, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992264.
Milner, R. M. (2012). The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media.. PhD Thesis. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
Milner, R. M. (2013). Media lingua franca: Fixity, novelty, and vernacular creativity in Internet memes. Selected Papers of Internet Research 14. http://spir.aoir.org/index.
php/spir/article/view/806/390.
Miltner, K. M. (2014). There’s no place for lulz on LOLCats: The role of genre, gender and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an Internet meme. First
Monday, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535194. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5391/4103.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (2008). Visual literacy or literary visually. In J. Elkins (Ed.), Visual literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nielsen, L. M. (2004). Imagining space on the Base of pictorial representation. In R. E. Griffin, S. B. Chandler, & B. D. Cowden (Eds.), Visual literacy and development: An
African experience (pp. 167–172). Loretto, PA: IVLA.
Nissenbaum, A., & Shifman, L. (2017). Internet memes as contested cultural capital: The case of 4chan’s /b/ board. New Media & Society, 19(4), 483–501. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1461444815609313.
O’Halloran, K., Tan, S., & Marissa, K. L. E. (2017). Multimodal analysis for critical thinking. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439884.2016.1101003.
O’Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. London: Leicester University Press.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541–574.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393771.
Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the visual arts. New York: Doubleday.
Pauwels, L. (2008). Visual literacy and visual culture: Reflections on developing more varied and explicit visual competencies. The Open Communication Journal, 2,
79–85. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874916x00802010079.
Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies. An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage.
Rose, F. (2011). The art of immersion: How the digital generation is remaking Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the way we tell stories. New York: Norton.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (2019). Degrees of freedom: Exploring agency, narratives, and technological affordances in the #TakeAKnee controversy. Social Media + Society, 5
(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119826125.
Serafini, F. (2010). Reading multimodal texts: Perceptual, structural and ideological perspectives. Children’s Literature in Education, 41, 85–104. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10583-010-9100-5.
Serafini, F. (2012). Expanding the four resources model: Reading visual and multi-modal texts. Pedagogies, 7(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1554480x.2012.656347.
Serafini, F. (2014). Reading the visual. An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Serafini, F. (2017). Visual literacy. The oxford research encyclopedia of education.
Serafini, F., & Ladd, S. M. (2008). The challenge of moving beyond the literal in literature discussions. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 4(2), 6–20.
http://www.coe.uga.edu/jolle/2008_2/challenge.pdf.
Shifman, L. (2013). Memes in digital culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shifman, L. (2014). The cultural logic of photo-based meme genres. Journal of Visual Culture, 13(3), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914546577.
Silva, A. (2016). Digital literacies and visual rhetoric: Scaffolding a meme-based assignment sequence for introductory composition classes. The Journal of Interactive
Technology & Pedagogy. https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.
Sjöström, S. (1999). From vision to cognition. A study of metaphor and polysemy in Swedish. In J. Alwood, & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Cognitive semantics. Meaning and
cognition (pp. 67–85). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
SPSS. (2017). Statistical packages for the social sciences 25.0 for Macintosh. IBM Corp.
Stones, E. (2017). “Nobody puts baby in a binder”: Using memes to teach visual reason. Communication Teacher, 31(3), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17404622.2017.1314525.
Sturken, M., & Cartwright, L. (2001). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sun, H. (2009). Toward a rhetoric of locale: Localizing mobile messaging technology into everyday life. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 39, 245–261.
https://doi.org/10.2190/tw.39.3.c.
Takaya, K. (2016). Exploring EFL students’ visual literacy skills and global understanding through their analysis of Louis Vuitton’s advertisement featuring Mikhail
Gorbachev. Journal of Visual Literacy, 35(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2016.1197561.
Tisdell, E. J. (2008). Critical media literacy and transformative learning: Drawing on pop culture and entertainment media in teaching for diversity in adult higher
education. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608318970.
Tyler, S. A. (1984). The vision quest in the West, or what the mind’s eye sees. Journal of Anthropological Research, 40, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/
jar.40.1.3629688.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Unsworth, L. (2008). Multimodal semiotics: Functional analysis in contexts of education. London: Continuum.
Unsworth, L. (2017). Image–Language interaction in text comprehension: Reading reality and national Reading tests. In C. Ng, & B. Barlett (Eds.), Improving Reading
and Reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 99–118). Dordrecht: Springer.
Valdez, P., Navera, J., & Garinto, L. (2020). Using memes to teach critical inquiry in the ESL classroom. TESOL Journal, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.505.
Wade, W. P. (2014). Bridging critical thinking and media literacy through integrated courses. CDTL Brief, 17(2), 2–5.
Weber, R. (2013). Constrained agency in corporate social media policy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43, 289–315. https://doi.org/10.2190/
tw.43.3.d.
Wiggins, B. E., & Bowers, G. B. (2015). Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society, 17, 1886–1906. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444814535194.
Wileman, R. E. (1993). Visual communicating. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Yenawine, P. (1997). Thoughts on visual literacy. https://vtshome.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/12Thoughts-On-Visual-Literacy.pdf.
Yenawine, P. (2005). Thoughts on visual literacy. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, & S. B. Heath (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and
visual arts. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Yenawine, P. (2014). Visual thinking strategies. Using art to deepen learning across school disciplines. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Yu, N. (2004). The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 663–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(03)00053-5.

15
E. Domínguez Romero and J. Bobkina Thinking Skills and Creativity 40 (2021) 100783

Elena Domínguez Romero is associate professor of English language and linguistics at the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain) where she coordinates the
Master’s programme in Teacher Training for the modern languages English, German, French and Italian. Her recent research interests include evidentiality and
positioning in media discourse as well as applied linguistics and innovative teaching research. Her publications comprise over 60 papers in national and international
journals, book chapters and co-edited volumes in Peter Lang, Routledge, IGI Global, Multilingual Matters or McGraw Hill.

Jelena Bobkina lectures in the Department of Linguistics Applied to Science and Technology at the Technical University of Madrid (UPM) where she teaches English for
Specific Purposes. Her main publication and research interests are in computer-assisted language learning, discourse analysis in digital media environments, and EFL/
ESL teaching methodology. She belongs to the ENTELEARN (ENglish, Technologies, & LEARNing) Research Group and is an active member of numerous research
projects on innovative teaching. She has published extensively in a large number of internationally refereed journals.

16