Art TEAMS is off to a Great Start

 

This week we finally started our Art TEAMS grant with teachers. The project is developing self-driven creative learners who connect disciplines using arts and emerging media as a language to engage and organize knowledge and life experiences.

We will accomplish this by developing, implementing, and evaluating a professional development program for K-12 art educators, generalist teachers, principals, teaching artists, and museum educators.

This week was our first with this great crew of educators. In this professional learning opportunity, we have been careful to design a program that respects the strengths of all the participants and positions everyone as a participant and co-leader. I have to admit that I have not created this much physical representation of learning since my Graduate school days at UCR, nor have I created this much art since my elementary school days. I have found the interactions and the learning powerful, and I believe we are on our way to creating a powerful model that will provide an avenue for innovation. 

Reflecting on this week, my lessons are:

1. We all require protected time to make leaps in our practice and transform our approach. I do know that summer workshops transformation is hard to bring back into the classroom, and thus we will continue to support and work with our team of educators for the next two years.

2. Art is fun even for those with a limited artistic ability (me). You just have to let go and be playful. 

3. Exploring the affordances of materials and discovering their malleability is a truly engaging endeavor.

4. Movement. Movement is magical; in many ways, it is a discovery for me, a discovery that makes me dance with joy. 

Finally, I want to reflect on a moment of pride. In this grant, we insisted on supporting local Nebraska artists. We have found four unique and outstanding artists. I will talk about each of them in a different post but for now suffice to say that I have had a glorious week, and I cannot wait for next week to continue the work.

A Flipping Rant

Khan and Gates

No, its not what you think and it is still a clean blog. I spent some time thinking last week on flipped learning a term that is in very real danger of becoming a cliche. It started with Khan and his academy that I have discussed before and even recommended on my netcast. I have actually used a version of a flipped classroom in a methodology course I teach in the summer using the Khan academy mini lessons to help students go through the fundamental calculations in descriptive statistics. More recently Hake a prolific observer of science education has posted a series of responses to the quality of the Khan academy instructional approaches (very old fashioned really) that can be seen here. I agree with much of what's been said there but here I have another point to make.
Everyone is hailing this approach as the new silver bullet- new thinking about education that will help transform education. I have the sinking suspicion that the support for this model is actually rooted in two very irrelevant sources. The first is the observation that the instruction on the Khan academy video's is in fact very old fashioned. It is exactly the same thing that I had in Math when I went to school, the only difference is that you can watch it your time repeatedly without driving your teacher crazy.
The second reason this approach is deemed great is that it is supported by someone that has never been an educator and knows very little about learning theory. We love innovators in education that come from other realms and can show educators the light.

Students discussing the media they read at home
during Literature Circles

My rant, however, goes in a very different direction. English language arts and social studies teachers (primarily) have from the dawn of time been flipping their classrooms. They sent students home with the direction of consuming media (books, movies, photos, source documents). The  in class everyone discussed the novels, source documents and produced projects about them. Yet, this does not occur to CNN, BBC or Bill Gates. It turns out that every high-school teacher has been doing it for years. So why do we like when Khan does it? again because it is in math, because it is coming from outside education, because first he made his millions in the stock market and then he discovered education- such a sacrifice. Much more than a teacher that has skipped the getting rich part and dedicated his life to children without the benefit of earnings and Bill Gates loving embrace.
My flipping sisters and brothers who teach in flippin' ways you were there first and will still be there even after Khan fades into distant memory.

The Place of Integrated Arts Courses in Preservice Elementary Education

This week Deborah Loewenberg-Ball visited UNL and gave a talk on the place of Schools of Education in Research Universities. You can access the powerpoint of the talk here, and soon we hope to have a video up.

One notion that I find very interesting now, as I coordinate our Elementary Education preservice program at UNL is the notion of our programs as "labs of practice in which we explore and research new and innovative ways to educate the next generation of teachers. This approach is very much in line with my thinking about the role of formative or design experiments in which rigorous curricular design and assessment are intertwined to create an innovative self- correcting structure that is focused on development not as a result of external pressures but instead of growing understanding of process and product as well as influenced by the research we do in schools.

So what that has to do with the arts? Well we have a unique opportunity to leverage what we've been learning in the field into our preservice program. In the last few years we shifted from a domain approach in arts education (a class on music, visual etc.) to an integrated experience focused on aesthetic experiences. Our masters in elementary education (MAET) program has an integrated arts education course that integrates the arts, science, and literacy in the context of place based education (in our case the prairie). We are now ready to make the arts more prominent throughout our program. I am not yet sure of what form it will take but the possibilities are truly exciting.

A View from Outside

I have a graduate student who has arrived from China this Fall. I decided to bring her to our Fall professional development meeting as an observer. I was really interested in her view of the process and focus of the group. I of course think we're doing some very interesting and important things and that our group of teachers is outstanding- but does it come across?
Here is what she wrote in response:

It is a precious experience to attend such an eye-opening meeting. When I entered into the meeting room, what caught my eyes were teachers’ engaging in communicating and learning from each other, so earnestly and openly. It is the curriculum for the following several months. Music and arts teachers from two schools came here, worked together, and absorbed new ideas to improve the instructional efficiency. There are two amazing samples showing how to teach music and arts. For music, there are seven hollow beams which were equal to the seven music scales. Then seven kids each holds one beam standing for one music scale. To make music these kids should concentrate on his or her own role as well as working together with other kids harmoniously. It conveys the sense of cooperation, practice and deep impression of music. Brilliant! For the arts, two diverse oil paintings are presented. Kids are given these questions from simple to complex step by step, “what do you see?”, “where are they?”, “what are they doing?”, “why do you think so?” . These kids learn to read arts, from the paintings’ appearance to their essence, from outside to inside, from the gradual developing process. Since they’ve just gained the knowledge about the community, of course, their explanation and imagination about the two paintings has lots to do with community, which is accordance with the theory of schema. One of the kids was such a genius in answering these questions that it raised my concern about what family background he is from, and what he has learned. Would this ground be a backup reason for his outstanding performance? In all, these two examples are really vivid and explicit ways of instruction. Apart from the two examples, teacher Pat has presented us the previous achievement by giving an example about how a cute and smart boy understands the community. By putting kids directly into the real world is such a good idea. They can see and touch the statue of George Washington by themselves when hearing the legendary stories; they can feel the hot whether by standing in the sunshine during the hot summer day. Lost in the thought that kids in my country could also have such an experience, I wonder what would it be like? I am still curious about other kids’ situation and comprehension, which may be unnecessary or futile. The main topic for the next few months is life cycle-- to inform children the basic knowledge about animals, environment, cooperation and skills for how to survive in the wild nature. What I can see is an integration composed by arts and reading, intertwined into each other. Almost everything is perfect and indeed it helps to promote students’ motivation in study and easy students’ development in literacy. I had tried to find the difference between this and my country’s education, which emphasize more on science. Eighteen out of twenty classes were science classes in my high school, and those two arts classes were for those students who cannot go though science class. People had slightly prejudice over arts, considering it of a little practical use and low payback investment. The phenomenon also exist my friend’s country, Chad, Russia, developing countries. Developing country needs to consider the economic factors more for advancing. Still, there is a long way to go before educational systems learn from each other. And yet, what I see is a whole world of arts and reading, almost no science (I even ask Jean why, which is kind of silly of me). Is that because this is the meeting about arts and literacy? I think kids here begin their study about science a little late. Arts and literacy should be considered to be an integral body, and if science is in parallel with arts and literacy’s tempo, then arts, literacy and science would be a better integration too, or interdisciplinary integration. I believe the two hemispheres of the brain need balanced development for uncovering potentials of kids. The end of education here comes out to be the best around the world now, but that does not mean that it has no space to improve. I remember that my high school teacher has said that once a kid is very good at English and math, he probably will be qualified for university. This has been a belief of mine during these years, and I would tell every parent the “truth”. English and math is really opposite and hard discipline in my country. Math classes involve a lot basic knowledge such as probability, geometry, functions, and calculus. And English is a totally different language system. If we believe that “it is too early” or expect children to learn “when they need to”, we may miss the optimal period. Of course, we should not push them and we do not want to. Maybe we just need to think about it, and that is all. Well, in short, it is such a meaningful experience for me. It is like I incidentally fall into a circle full of great ideas.

Mike on Ken Robinson

I teach an undergraduate literacy methods block for Elementary teachers and in it my students are asked to reflect weekly on hat weeks readings and their classroom observations. I do allow them occasionally to deviate if they find a topic that is particularly appealing to them.
About a week ago Mike wrote this piece in response to a Ken Robinson piece (I am publishing this with his explicit permission):

"I'd like to take this opportunity to depart from the traditional format of the blogs and comment on something else. A friend of mine recently showed me this link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

In the video, Ken Robinson talks about the nature of our education system. He says that our educational system is far too linear. We start kids off in elementary school preparing them for middle and high school where we then prepare kids for college. All of this is designed so that the kids end up getting a degree and can thereby be successful in the world. Robinson argues that it was a great idea back when college degrees were comparatively rare to high school diplomas, but today, we have a higher percentage of people going on to get their degrees than ever before. As such, a bachelor's degree is not what it used to be. So if everyone has a degree, what more can we do with education to keep improving? Robinson's answer is creativity. He says that we need to teach kids to embrace creativity rather than cut our arts and music programs from the school's curriculum.

I like what Robinson had to say, but I think he overlooked some key aspects of education. Yes, more and more people are going on to get their degrees in post-secondary education. And yes, it would be really smart to teach those graduates to be more creative and well rounded. But what about the students we have to specifically tailor our instruction around? Special needs students present some of the greatest challenges to us as teachers. I feel like Robinson completely glossed over this very substantial, important group of people. It's naive to think that our current education system is great if not for it's lack of emphasis on creativity. Yes, we're sending more kids off to college than ever, but we still have a lot of work to do with educating every one of our students. Belmont, especially, has driven this point home for me"

Mike's comments contextualize what many teachers are thinking, namely that before we attend to creativity there is a lot of other work to be done. I wholeheartedly agree with Mike that we are not yet great at teaching all children what they need to be full citizens. On the other hand there seem to be an underlying assumption that creativity is the cherry, like higher order thinking or comprehension instruction something that comes after skills.

This is the danger that talks about the big C can lead to- the fact that teachers, administrators and parents worry about regular everyday capabilities and rightly so. The little dancer from Robinson'sstory would be a heartwarming story if she grew up to be a world class dancer- but we all know the chances are slim. We need a Ken Robinson who follows up and says and look how we can use her dancing to enhance her learning so she feels empowered to learn and we to teach through it- so she can be successful in everything she chooses to be engaged in.

Assessment of Student Art

I sat all Friday morning with Mindy Amy and Kristen with the explicit goal of looking at kindergarten student Art and trying to come up with a scoring scheme.
Some people refer to such attempts as "subjective" others resist any attempt to assess student art. My experience shows that these assessments are not more subjective than others we use- as long as we clearly define expectations. If the person making the judgment is well trained and the definitions are clear there is no problem. The only risk is in starting to make assumptions about student intent, that's where our work gets tricky. I have a really hard time attributing intent in art making to young students. We, therefore, tried to limit such attributions and make judgments only based on what is actually present in the artwork. In the future I'd like to accompany some of the work with some audio and a few aesthetic question son we can better understand intent- then again there is always more data to collect.

A few months back we brought an graduate student with Art experience to work with us on assessment. She pointed out that we cannot understand the assessment without knowing the teacher's goals within a lesson. The media and directions controlled the outcomes to the point that interpretation losses validity. While I do not completely agree [in early childhood we observe often like that] tapping into teacher goals has been very illuminating. For example in the attached student art the intent was to focus on secondary colors as students drew apples with watercolors. Despite the explicit goal focusing on colors the art allowed to observe two more features. Many students tried to give their apples a three dimensional feel by using color gradations and lines. The second was that in trying to describe their apples they almost never described the colors in any way...

Looking at the Art provides a window to what students can do. It also provides a window to what teachers are emphasizing in their instruction and what they deem less important. The vocabulary [not presented here] by the way was great.

Our assessment of student art includes now the developmental rubric (originally by Nancy A.) though we are adding to it a parallel space rubric that will apply to still life portraits etc. Then we assess whether state standards are achieved and teacher explicit goals are met. Finally we assess the number of links between the art and language activity. In the case of Apple art the language generated was a list of three descriptors for the apples. Even for a first time I must say that we were incredibly consistent with very few disagreements. We will continue working on this for most of the summer so stay tuned.