Making Meaning Makes Progress

A topic I frequently bring up during Art Education discussions is the cookie-cutter “art-isn’t-practical-as-a-career-path” argument. After years of being doubted by peers going on to careers in the science field, I began to wonder whether or not art had enough merit to be a reliable major. Art’s subjectivity makes it seem simple to anyone who doesn’t regularly try to verbally articulate it—a task that becomes harder to articulate when you’re discussing a subjective form of education. It seems this assumption has even trickled into art education in its most traditional state, forcing teachers to focus heavily on the history of art before students are told to monotonously replicate it. Gude presented a parallel that often isn’t brought to light in the Art Education debate: the futility of teaching science in the way art has always been taught (2013, p. 12).

 Perhaps becoming the only liaison between the left brain and an general understanding of the art world, this comparison clearly illustrates the misfortunes of the right-brained population. We are expected to learn through means that are no longer relevant to the world in which we live. The simile presented by Gude continues on, saying that science students would be in the same boat if they were asked to learn all outdated theories prior to the widely accepted ones (2013, p.12). Evidently, this is not the way the science field works. Scientific progress has shattered the public’s expectations since the age of the Space Race—turning the impossible into factual accounts. This feat was made possible by the ever-contemporizing science curricula in schools. Art, however, has stayed in the shadows, as standard curricula stay in place for generations. You begin by learning the artists’ names, their typical styles, facts about their life, and then reproduce aworkt in their personal style. Has this gap between the creative and academic sides of education prevented art from progressing in the past half a century? Would “modern art” look completely different had a progressive curriculum come into play at the same time scientists were cruising through the stratosphere?

Some Minimalist art, like the allegory above,
contributes to the general public's
misunderstanding of Modern Art. If art ed. had
more progressive styles during the twentieth
century forward, do you think modern art would
have been different? (Pinterest)

Hypothetically speaking, if art had been as concretely progressive as science-based successes—meaning advancements in art education would have been more visible to those out of the art realm—it could have potentially bridged the gap between the world of fact and fiction. In other words, the stories that artists tell in the world that they create could have become integrated with reality. Their realness could have been emphasized even to non-art lovers, perhaps, by functionality. Teaching art students to bring their work to life via some sort of function relative to their environment could have interwoven science and art together in a long-lasting marriage. If all blueprints for art projects looked like the pages of DaVinci’s sketchbooks, imagine what could result from that.

This is not to say that art education has not made leaps and bounds since the mid-twentieth century, because it has. And this is not to say that science is any more important than the arts or vice versa. Rather, the metamorphosis in academic curricula that has created so much positive change needs to permeate through art education as well. Yes, new art-based jobs have formed in recent decades, but how many students know jobs like this exist [until they attempt to pursue art on a college level]? Very few. Gude recognizes that “contemporary theories of making meaning recognize all meaning making involves borrowing from previous meanings” (2013, p. 12). If we are forever taught that jobs post-college will not exist in art—essentially that the subject we’re most passionate about has no meaning from the get-go—how can we be expected to make meaning aside from these previous assumptions? And without the drive to make meaning aside from these previous meanings, the community of artists, both presently and in the future, certainly doesn’t have the means to make progress.

Gude, Olivia (2013). New School Art Styles: The Project of Art Education. Art Education. 

Building Together: A Conversation About Child-Centered Curriculum with David Rufo

I want to take a moment to share some collaborative learning that was a result of our 1st reading assignment in 212. This conversation is backtracking from our current exploration of Olivia Gude's work, but there is a thread that runs throughout 212's first three readings that I hope this conversation will help strengthen. We began the process of exploring alternative (and artist-centric) ways to understand curriculum and pedagogy in the art education K-12 classroom in late January by reading an article published in the Journal of Art Education written by David Rufo (2012) "Building Forts and Drawing on Walls: Fostering Student-Initiated Creativity Inside and Outside the Elementary Classroom". 

In the article, Rufo describes his process of becoming a teacher/researcher (p.42) and the collaborative approach to developing child-centered curriculum with his colleague and co-teacher Greg Sommer. The process is described through personal journal entries from 2009 and through the explorations of two student-initiated creative projects that challenge the traditional notions of how and where meaningful learning happens. Through fort building and mazes Rufo and Sommer's 4th grade students become artists, engineers, co-creators, and co-educators. Likewise, the notion of what constitutes curriculum and pedagogy are transformed. As Rufo states, "In the late 19th century, the Viennese art instructor Franz Cizek valued the creative ideas of children (Efland, 1990) and recognized the importance of spontaneity in education (Wilson, 1974). Over 100 years later, I believe it’s time for teachers to allow opportunities for children to create in serendipitous ways" (p. 46).

Following our reading, I divided the class into two small groups and handed out Post-It notes. I asked each member of the group to reflect in conversation on a particularly meaningful learning experience they encountered during their K-12 experience that made an impact on their interest in art education and to anticipate one important characteristic of curriculum or pedagogy they hoped to bring to their future art classroom. Following the group conversations, I asked the students to write these ideas on their Post-It notes and to place each note under the categories they felt it fit best. I created four categories: open-ended curriculum, specific or close-ended curriculum, experiences directly related to art education, experiences indirectly related to art education. As you can see, the class favored open-ended assignments. Interestingly, there were more experiences indirectly related to art education (and one between the two) that were valuable to students. 

Following this sorting, our class discussed connections we could see between our own experiences and expectations for future teaching with Rufo's article. Two issues arising from our conversation that were particularly interesting with regard to comparing and contrasting student experiences and expectations with Rufo's classroom experiences: the anxiety expressed regarding matters of classroom management and what such a curriculum actually looks like on paper. It seems that even though we all shared, to some extent or another, prior experiences and future professional expectations for openness and respect for students' interests as a means to more meaningful learning, there were lingering questions about how to increase the frequency of such experiences while still satisfying other classroom demands.

During the in-class discussion about Rufo's article on January 22, all 212 students wrote about one prior meaningful learning experience and one quality they hoped to bring to their future art classrooms and placed their notes under the category they felt most appropriately characterized the learning. Photo: Lillian Lewis

I've created a table with each category that had a Post-It so you can read the students' comments:

Open	Direct	Halfway between Direct & Indirect	Indirect
discussion between students & student teacher about what we all want to learn & accomplish	student-based learning	having a teacher who creates art along with you (students can see what the teacher is working on, too.)	songs incentives every once in awhile
Projects that are open to any different interpretations	variety of methods and projects		Give students enough time to finish projects without boring others. Use a variety of different projects because students enjoy different materials.
Feedback			Inspire
Open-ended lesson plans
Good student class culture
Let students have a say in what we are learning. What do they want to get out of the class?
Packets: describe techniques to use within your artwork. Open-ended assignments & feeling like you have a say in what you learn.
Talking to students like they’re equals, not lesser in any way.

Following our classroom discussion, I asked students to explore their unanswered questions and concerns about self-initiated creativity and child-centered curriculum. Next, I asked them to go home, continue to reflect on our reading and conversation, and then to e-mail me one (or more) remaining questions they had after our discussion. Despite having worked in K-12 settings for several years in two states, I had not fully implemented child-centered curriculum in my own classrooms. I recognized that I was not able to answer my students' questions from a position of direct experience with child-centered curriculum, but I felt it was important for our conversations about these kinds of classrooms continue. Ultimately, I seek to reflect on my own teaching methods, as Rufo does, in order to "discern how my actions could be adjusted to better allow for creative independence to take place, and my classroom could become an environment for students to 'exercise their agency' (Wilson, 2005, p. 23)"(p.45). I contacted David Rufo via e-mail and asked him if he would feel comfortable answering my students' questions. While he is admittedly a busy man, he and his colleague Greg Sommer worked together to answer my students' questions in a couple days. I have copied David and Greg's blended answers for you to peruse below. My hope is that this conversation will begin to help not only students in 212 have a broader notion of what a child-centered curriculum can be from the perspective of educators whose pedagogical approach embraces these practices successfully, but that readers who stumble across our 212 class blog who may have some of the same questions about child-centered curriculum may find some food for thought. 

Without further ado, here are our questions and the responses. I've retained the blue response color that David and Greg used to differentiate their answers from the 212 students' questions*.

Keely -  How do you maintain a student based curriculum in a low socioeconomic school district with very large classes?

Hi Keely - It is much easier to have a student-based curriculum with smaller class sizes because there is more time for the teacher to interact with each student. However, if allowed by the school system, there are ways to deal with very large classes. I would do this by first establishing a culture of student agency within the classroom. Instead of the teacher being at the helm and making all of the decisions, the teacher would act as a facilitator and close observer to see what the group dynamic has to offer. A lot of time has to be spent getting to know the group and allowing them to get to know each other. Trust within the community has to be cultivated and nurtured by the safe sharing of various perspectives. This takes time, patience, and effort. It is exhausting but incredibly valuable. Traditional academics have to be set aside so that the students can first see themselves as empowered members of the classroom community.

Kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds need to feel empowered, valued, and trusted. I've taught children from very poor backgrounds as well as from very privileged backgrounds. The children from privileged backgrounds had difficulties like any other child but they also had a lot of cultural capital. Experiences such as European vacations and weekend treks to the ski-mountains of the Northeast were common. These students had parents, grandparents, and many times great-grandparents who were able to attend college. They were taught from the cradle how to socialize and network for personal gain. Their families were set up with trust funds to pay for college tuition and private schooling. The kids from poor households need opportunities not only for academic advancement, but just as importantly, for social advancement. This training begins by empowering them within the classroom so that they have opportunities to critically analyze, debate, solve interpersonal situations and advocate for themselves in a safe and welcoming environment.

I think it's easy to maintain a student-based curriculum in a low socioeconomic school district with very large classes. The trick is navigating the top-down, hierarchical framework of the school district. How you go about that is largely dependent on where you end up being placed or finding a job. I can speak to those details as well.

Laura - What other art-related projects (other than forts, or maze doodles) have you noticed kids making, and then perhaps implemented into the classroom since the 2009/10 school year?

Hi Laura - my dissertation research is on the self-initiated creativity of children. I have collected vast amounts of data over the past few years and especially since the 2009-2010 school year. I have data files containing photos and videos of my students creating insect habitats, making designs using Cheerios, choreographing dance routines, producing movies, putting on skits, creating puppets, making dyes, using food as an expressive medium, weaving grasses and leaves, painting, drawing, sculpting, making creative objects from duct tape and masking tape, using found objects to create music and rhythms… the list goes on and on. The self-initiated creations were implemented via the cross pollination of ideas that rippled through the students as they worked and interacted. For example, a few years ago kids began drawing on our classroom tables (A link to an article on this practice: http://tajaltspace.com/post/29975180714/drawing-on-tabletops). Overtime each subsequent class added to this idea of our classroom tabletops as collective canvases. Currently, our tabletops have student markings made with Sharpies and White Out as well as holes bored into the tops with screws and nails driven in with hammers. Recently, students began sanding portions of the tops while others have made carvings and other incised markings using files and scissors.

Greg adds that many art projects came about as a result of learning concepts and skills through our lessons and activities. When we explored Shakelton's Antarctic expedition many students branched out artistically to demonstrate and present their learning via stop action animation, dances, songs and sketches. On other occasions the natural play of children with rubber bands, paper clips, and pencils led to science labs on kinetic energy and a study of the catapults from the Middle Ages. Greg also points out that, as general classroom teachers, we encouraged artistic thinking and doing throughout all our subject areas. We view creative learning as something that goes beyond traditional art projects and permeates every aspect of our school day.

Yenni - How do you conduct student-based learning while not straying too far from your original lesson plan?

Hi Yenni - Actually, we embrace the idea of straying from our original lesson plans. As a student-centered classroom we usually begin with a lesson or activity and then allow it to morph, develop, and expand according to the interests of individual students as well as the collective. Greg takes this idea a step further by saying “If there's a feeling of straying, then we're not listening enough to students. If the curriculum makes us feel that way then the curriculum needs to be changed.” He always asks the question, “Is the curriculum for the students or is it to control students and teachers?” From his experience with home schooling his three children this year he has found that curricula are designed from adult perspectives, which is why they are continually being reformed.

Jessica - Where does all of your inspiration, when creating an insightful and thought provoking lesson plan, come from? I often fear that I will run out of ideas for perceptive, yet fun and interesting lessons.

Hi Jessica - Greg says that his inspiration comes from nature, music, personal research, and mostly from the students. I wrote a paper about our classroom titled, bUzZ: A guide to authentic and joyful creative learning (you can find it here: https://syr.academia.edu/DavidRufo) which talks about how we adapted our classroom practices by using something called “reciprocal engagement.” There is a lot educational literature offering advice on how to get kids to engage with the teachers. But we are more interested in engaging with the students and trying to ascertain their moods and interests. I guess you can say that we begin with something that’s interesting to us, present it to the students, see where they want to take it and go from there.

Kathryn - How do you balance a student centered classroom where you focus of your students' interests and following the curriculum? As a result how are your lesson plans structured?

Hi Kathryn - How far you can take it depends upon the political climate of the school and what programs those in charge have adopted. If I had full license to do whatever I wanted, balancing a student-centered approach and making sure the kids got the necessary skills and content would be easy. In my view difficulties arise when curricular and programmatic decisions are made based on factors that are not relevant to the students in my classroom. I find it absurd for a school to adopt a prepackaged program and expect it to work with kids in New York because it may have worked with kids in California. As far as lesson plans go I usually write up fairly detailed plans with the expectation that they may go exactly as planned, have to be adjusted midway, or trashed altogether. I like to arrive at school 30 – 45 minutes before the kids and take time to visualize how everything might play out. Greg, on the other hand, will arrive in the classroom with no time to spare and be able to come up with a fantastic hands-on activity within minutes. So, our lesson plans are really dependent upon our personal needs, comfort levels, and approaches to education. I’ve learned much from Greg, but I still like to have lots of time to plan beforehand. My lesson plans are visibly structured whereas Greg’s are mentally structured. 

Abbie - Where do you get your inspiration from? Is there a certain artist who inspires you the most?

Hi Abbie - As an artist (you can view my current work here: davidjohnrufo.com) I am inspired by a number of modern and contemporary artists: Twombly, Bacon, VanGogh, Rothko, Richter, Basquiat, Hirst, Wool, Goldin, Emin, Murakami, Nolde, Ruscha, Polke, Baselitz, Fontana, Pollock, de Kooning, Kirchner, Giacometti, Bourgeois, Prince, Turrell, etc. The list goes on and on. But time and time again I see things kids create that rival the top artists. Just today one of my students wasn’t into our math lesson. When this happens she will usually begin to paint, carve a pencil with a scissors, or engage in some other type of creative endeavor. I think for her it’s a therapeutic exercise. Without realizing it she will create things that are very similar to contemporary works of art. Today she began stapling a piece of paper over and over only stopping when the sheet was completely covered. The activity had a calming effect on her. The resultant piece reminded me of Tara Donovan’s work. Both Greg and I believe that children are natural artists. They don’t have to be taught create, they just need to be allowed to create.

Anastasia - How can teachers empower students through a "disruption of familiar order" without giving them too much power in the classroom or curriculum?

Hi Anastasia – great question because it speaks the counter intuitiveness of our teaching philosophy.  Many folks think that empowering kids will eventually lead to anarchy and chaos. Greg and I found in our experience the opposite to be true. When kids are respected and empowered they actually work harder and more responsibly. But to be clear, when we talk about empowerment we are not saying that the teacher should take a back seat and let the students do whatever they want. The teacher/adult in the room needs to be a facilitator, mentor, guide who is constantly engaged with the students. Teaching a child-centered classroom means you have to work much harder. Think about it. Traditional teachers spend most of their time laying down rules and protocol so that they can deliver information and in some instances, disengage from their students (think of “seatwork” like holiday themed packets such as word finds, mazes and crossword puzzles). The expectation is that rules are in place for students to follow. The rules are made to make the teacher’s job easier, not to make the learning relevant to the students. Classroom management is all about controlling the students from the teacher’s perspective. We have all seen teachers who give the same handouts, worksheets and tests year after year. Greg and I create our lessons and activities based on the current make up of our classroom. Our classroom may change drastically from year to year depending upon the individual and collective dynamics of the student body. We don’t presume to think our students this year will benefit from what last year’s students learned or how they learned.

(*Finally, a note for outside readers of our 212 blog, if you have experience in a child-centered classroom and you'd like to share your experiences or thoughts on the subject or if this conversation raises questions for you, please feel free to share them in our comments section. We welcome your contribution to our collaborative learning!)

References:

Rufo, D. (2012). Building forts and drawing on walls: Fostering student-initiated creativity both inside and outside the elementary classroom. Art Education, 65(3), 40-47.