So this prezi is my attempt to have a digital accompaniment to how I would explain the process and justification for backwards design and the cumulative task planning we just completed. It's not really complete without being narrated and directed in person, but it's still a good overview of some things. :)
http://prezi.com/gyvptmh9szjt/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
0 Comments
Re-placing the Arts in Elementary School Curricula: An Interdisciplinary, Collaborative Action Research Project: by Allen Trent and Jorge-Ayn Riley
I have mixed emotions reading reports like this on the role of Art in school curriculum's. It's not because I don't value art education, but I'm hesitant by how often arts are redefined, brought in or out of vogue and treated without as much serious consideration as maths, sciences or language. This article takes the approach that instrumentalist approaches to art can help support different disciplines by providing multimodal experiences for students, constructivist learning situations, and encouraging broader social and behavioral lessons that go beyond the curriculum expectations. I do agree that movement beyond the transmission model of teaching is essential, and there needs to be a return in our societies to valued places for artists within communities; not as fringe members or oddities, but as contributing foundations to cultural mosaics. This however, does not necessarily mean I support this study. It sounds quite wonderful what they were able to accomplish with their students, and I'm sure it was more enjoyable than a standard, teacher led lesson, but it raises concerns for me of the treatment of art as a whole. One big glaring issue that kept coming up throughout the document was the reported validity of the research method, this collaborative research approach, which the authors valued so highly. Yes of course you're going to say it's a wonderful approach, because basically you are both judging your own performance and work? Wow, you two were able to co-operate and help each other succeed? How very humble of you. This reflects upon a wider misunderstanding I think that pervades some forms of education: doing creative, colourful lessons/activities does not always mean they are better. It's too easy for teachers to get caught into flavor of the month lesson plans which strive towards being innovative, that don't necessarily really show deeper understanding by students. I think they can be, but I wasn't sold by how wonderful the findings were in this document based upon their own personal reflections and bias. Also, they kept throwing out terms like "quality art", and "quality lessons". Who is determining the quality of the art lessons they are performing? They themselves admitted they had no formal art training and relied on google searches to guide their lessons. How much quality does that ensure? For me this criticism strikes at a deeper fear I have; that as someone who believes in the value of art education, that it becomes degraded to a form of "making pretty pictures, or colourful posters" that anyone can simply tag onto a project or lesson and feel good about. At lower grade levels, this is less of a concern, as just exposing children to art is wonderful in itself and creativity and expression are more valuable than technique or form. However at higher grades, I have seen too many art classes and teachers ill prepared to actually engage students to further their abilities and students entering into University/College programs for art, have no foundations, no idea of fundamental art concepts, and rely basically on natural talent. Deciding we don't need to teach art separately can lead to a dangerous precedent later that would have the value of formal art education whither and decay. Now, I know this is looking at elementary classrooms, but this bleeds over into middle school and high school classrooms as well. Often the art components for classes is limited to depictions of projects done in other subjects, posters, presentations, drawings, etc., simply because art is not a priority. Why not have subjects in history/math/science be taught inside an art classroom instead? Why not reverse this idea of instrumentalist teaching to have art as a core subject and other subjects represented through it? I don't see why you can't teach grade 3's about plants and animals (or whatever their curriculum might entail) through carefully planned art lessons, rather than through other classes that tag art alone as supplementation. Maybe that is a wider critique of our societal values, art is something that is designed or espoused as a frill or decoration, but not an integral part of our lives. Of course, it is integral, but we do not value it as such on a wider level. So most of my objections are more at the philosophical level and trying to see arts place in the curriculum as a whole. I did actually like the activity and opportunity the students had to engage the issue of privacy, and how through art they could explain their understanding. One concern I had was how does this approach to art at lower levels scale when going to higher grades? How much more difficult does it become to plan these artistic activities beyond simple things like painting, posters and drawing? Once you move beyond the most fundamental, easily accessible kinds of art, the knowledge of the teacher, the tools and resources needed and the preparation increase dramatically. If the level of material is being increased in difficulty and maturity, why not the level of art involved? From my own experience, I was making the same kinds of posters in grade 4 and 5, as I was in grade 12 or OAC. Not because my posters didn't improve, but because the demands and expectations for presented art were never challenged or developed. That isn't necessarily a detraction from these types of lessons, its just an added complexity that might prove problematic. To be fair, I am glad these kinds of studies are being done, even in the face of increasing pressure for test based results in schools, but I didn't find anything really groundbreaking in this report. It seems more to echo what most primary school teachers already know and practice, that learning supported by multimodality, especially arts, increases student involvement, understanding and enjoyment. It just saddens me that art, unlike almost every other discipline in school, has not progressed in a linear fashion. What I mean is that the achievements and understanding of science, linguistics, mathematics, history, etc, have all increased in our school systems over time, however art is one of the few areas where we have huge lapses in ability and knowledge, and someone, not even a genius, but an average student in the 1600's, could produce artwork that would amaze and astound us today, and that only incredibly motivated and dedicated people can hope to produce today. How did we lose the skills and abilities of art so quickly and consistently? The answer I'm afraid is because we treat art as a commodity and luxury, instead of a necessity and integral part of human nature; the beauty of expression and connection. I wish we could develop a curriculum which would instill those values once again. From Tourist to Storyteller: Reading and Writing Science by Dawn Abt-Perkins and Gian Pagnucci I really liked this article and its approach to reinterpreting students interactions with texts, and moving beyond observers with static relationships, to involved, creative participants in material. For me, this relates heavily to some of the concepts in Indigenous Learning techniques and styles we have been introduced to. Especially the oral narrative tradition, and how human history is really based around the capacity to share and participate in oral traditions, and that written transmission of ideas is really a modern invention. The reality of most scientific texts and studies are that they try to parse information and remove human bias. This however does create a barrier to which information can longer be easily accessible. In some ways this speaks to the elitism present within academia and science. Why must scientific studies and research be presented in overly complex, convoluted ways? Why can't human experience, emotion and colouring be left into scientific data, not to usurp empirical figures, but to support and bolster them? By creating these stories, challenging their critical thinking skills and entering the world of imagination, these students were able to break that barrier, bringing the information off the page, and into their worlds. This technique could also be incorporated into mathematics, history, geography, civics, law, and a host of other subjects. I'm familiar with engaging students with information to form more and stronger relationships and interactions, increasing retention, enjoyment and ownership of information, however I never thought of this simple, yet seemingly effective approach. I'm glad this exposure is helping me to search for more creative and effective ways of engaging student literacy on the interactive and engaged level, rather than as passive trolling for data and figures. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
September 2016
Categories |