The Visual as Verb: Toward a Praxis of Critical Seeing in Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graffiti presents an opportunity to bridge critical pedagogy in education. In this context, graffiti images serve as tools for critical seeing, specifically for analysing, critiquing, and interpreting volumes of untapped and embedded communication. Graffiti has always served as a language and a medium for expressing emotions in various states, whether joyful or sorrowful. A single graffiti image can convey thousands of messages or interpretations to different viewers. The visual critical pedagogy prompted by graffiti should encourage students to engage with their environment through a critical and reflective lens, unmasking normative narratives and fostering a deeper understanding of pressing social issues. Consequently, the prevailing narrative that views graffiti as mere vandalism or rebellion necessitates a shift in perspective. This shift promotes a heightened societal consciousness, which is essential for achieving social justice and fostering critical dialogue within the community. This chapter, therefore, guided by the theories of Paulo Freire and Bell Hooks, aims to reconceptualise visual literacy as an action-oriented, justice-focused practice, where to “see” is to engage, disrupt, and co-create meaning. Additionally, it seeks to articulate a visual pedagogy rooted in activism, consciousness, and student agency. Freire advocates for problem-solving education, in which learners are actively involved in critiquing the status quo. Similarly, Hooks, building on Freire's work, emphasises the importance of social justice while encouraging challenges to oppressive systems. She champions critical consciousness in students, enabling them to understand their environments and offer solutions to the issues they face. Drawing on existing literature, the chapter employs a qualitative desktop study methodology to explore the following key components: Bridging critical pedagogy (Freire, Hooks) with visual studies; “Critical seeing” as a praxis: decoding, situating, and responding to visual messages; Graffiti as a visual language that teaches students to interrogate images of power; and classroom practices that treat the visual not as an illustration but as an argument. The chapter concluded that graffiti offers valuable opportunities for critical pedagogy in education through observation, analysis, and the construction of logical arguments that educators can utilise. In addition, it encourages students to critically and reflectively interact with their environment, fostering a better understanding of society and community issues. Incorporating graffiti into mainstream education can help shift perceptions from vandalism to an educational resource. This chapter, therefore, recommends the inclusion of graffiti as a fundamental part of school programmes. It also proposes empowerment of educators to effectively guide students in the proper and responsible use and appreciation of graffiti. Lastly, policymakers are recommended to develop policies that guide the implementation of graffiti in schools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".