Elementary School Art Education || What Elementary Generalist Teachers Need to Know to Teach Art Well

National Art Education Association

What Elementary Generalist Teachers Need to Know to Teach Art WellAuthor(s): Paul DuncumSource: Art Education, Vol. 52, No. 6, Elementary School Art Education (Nov., 1999), pp. 33-37Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193793 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 12:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:13:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193793?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


WHAT ELEMENTARY GENERALIST

TACHERS NEED TO N T

BY PAUL DUNCUM

M anyany elementary generalists feel that if they can't draw, they can't teach art. Instead, they explore numerous materials, or one material in numerous ways. Limited time devoted to art during pre-service, inadequate in-service education, and competing curriculum demands,

conspire to ensure that elementary generalists possess very little specialist knowledge in art. Consequently, pre-service teaching of elementary generalists

is sometimes considered the "black hole" of art education. No matter what

NOVEMBER 1999 / ART EDUCATION



pains are taken in teacher training, there appear to be few long term gains.

However, this perspective resists rather than attempts to work with the conditions under which elementary generalists operate, their main professional preoccupations, or their considerable generic teaching skills. I believe there is little point in expecting them to learn anything but the most basic content in art. And, moreover, there is no need for them to do so.1

If a discipline based approach is eschewed and art is considered to be essentially about making meaning in visual forms, it is possible to capitalise on the chief professional concerns of elementary generalists. If art is viewed as a form of literacy, of making and communicating meaning, it can be seen to serve elementary generalist's overriding concerns. What elementary generalists need to teach art well is a solid grounding in just a few teaching- cum-learning strategies for both making and responding to art and to know how to apply them in different grade levels.2

MAKING STRATEGIES VERBAL REFLECTION STRATEGY

This strategy, which is extensively described by Smith (1983), relies upon teachers providing verbal feedback to children on their picture-making with the intention that children reflect upon their own efforts. The principle is to recognise and validate children's efforts. It is based on two assumptions: development will occur if children can critically appraise their own work, and critical appraisal is best undertaken when understanding is encoded in language. Vague comments like, 'That's beautiful" or "I like that" provide encouragement but do not assist thinking. Its better to describe to

children what they have accomplished in order for children to critically appraise their own work, and this is best done by commenting upon children's images in a gentle, non- judgmental way. For example, of children from 18 months Smith would ask questions such as, "How did you make your brush make dots?... How did you move your arm to make this line?" (p. 22). For children aged between 3 and 5 years, she would comment and probe thus: 'You made a big shape on your paper. Did you use a lot of colours to make the shape?" (p. 30).

Children identify their experiences and realise more fully the meaning of their work. By constantly using technical, formal terms like tone, shape, balance, as well as descriptive terms like bumpy, wiggly, and bright, a repertoire of descriptive language is imparted. Simply telling a child that they have created a big red shape in the right-hand comer provides the child with several concepts: big, red, shape, right-hand, and comer. With a more conscious understanding of their actions, children can work more critically, discuss their work, and are more aware of alternatives.

Verbal reflection is especially useful among very young children who are preoccupied by their own creations and not yet ready for the other strategies which require more social interaction. Smith, however, shows how verbal reflection can be applied to other grades.

CONVERSATIONAL STRATEGY Whereas Smith's strategy utilises

what children typically produce in educational sites, what Sless (1978)

calls the conversational strategy is based on the most common method by which children teach themselves to make pictures outside the classroom. The verbal reflection strategy involves dialogue between teachers and children; the conversational strategy characteristically involves interchange amongst children. It is based on the way we all provide feedback to each other while engaged in ordinary, oral conversation. We correct, check, encourage, and extend one another through the words we use, our tone of voice, and facial expressions. The feedback is immediate and so is the response. Though often subtle, modification is a mutual, ongoing, and precise process. In conversation we learn quickly what someone else understands, and we are able to modify our own behaviour immediately. Learning to make pictures through graphic interaction with peers similarly involves immediate and precise feedback.

The strategy is founded on the psychological learning principle of the "plus one phenomenon," namely, that children learn from a model that is just one step ahead of their own level (Pariser, 1980). For example, a child who draws a person with a lumpy circle for the head and body, and two dots for the eyes, will not learn from a child, or adult, who draws in a realistic style. The model is too advanced. Effectively, children reason that a realistic drawing is good but unrelated to their efforts. It neither provides a model to emulate nor motivation to improve. But a model that is only one step ahead will provide

_ ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 1999



both a model to move toward and a source of motivation. Expecting the model to be within their range, they are likely to be motivated. A child will learn from another child who, for example, uses a similar method for drawing a person, but adds, for example, a line for a mouth.

The teacher's role is to organise classes so that children draw with and from each other. This means both legitimating copying and organising children so that copying is inevitable. Copying here is not a deadening activity, as is often claimed, because it is spontaneous and presents no insurmountable challenge (see Duncum, 1988 for a review). Teachers must match children of slightly different or complementary abilities. If teachers make images for children, they should, following the principle of the "plus one phenomena," attempt to make images in only a slightly more sophisticated way than the children. The Wilsons (1982, 1987) offer numerous examples.

PERCEPTUAL STRATEGY The perceptual strategy is based on

howArnheim (1974) and Golomb (1991) argue that young children learn to make pictures (Pariser, 1979). It is distinguished from the conversational strategy insofar as it emphasises the perceptual world rather than borrowing from other people's pictures. It also involves the invention of visual equivalents within the constraints of the medium, such as a lumpy circle for a head, or squiggly, spiral lines for curly hair. The media always imposes limitations so that, for example, the extent of detail that is achievable in drawing cannot be achieved in paint.

Insofar as the perceptual strategy involves inventing graphic equivalents,

M any case

studies of children

who draw

prolifically in their

own time indicate

the benefits of

copying from adult

images...

it is similar to the verbal reflection strategy. It is unlike the conversational strategy where the emphasis is on borrowing graphic schema from others, and in this regard it is also unlike the conventionalist strategy to be discussed shortly.

Particularly with young children, the perceptual strategy involves focusing attention, usually through specific questions, about what students

see before and/or during the act of drawing. Among young children the point is to develop and enrich concepts. This is true of the conversational strategy, but here the focus is upon the observation of real objects. For example, in examining a stuffed teddy bear, it would be useful to ask questions like, "How many pads does teddy have on each paw? How can we show teddy's pads?"

Very young children are unlikely to take notice of the subject while drawing and they have difficulty with proportions. However, prior examination through questions about the constituent parts of a subject enrich children's conception of the subject, and many children will subsequently incorporate details they otherwise would not.

For older children, there are many exercises to develop their abilities to see. These include contour drawing, drawing negative instead of positive shapes, feeling objects in a bag, learning to draw from memory, drawing objects in unusual settings, and drawing upside down (Edwards, 1979; Johnson, 1990; McKim, 1972; Nicolaides, 1941; Wilson, Hurwitz, & Wilson, 1987). Each of these approaches work on the same basic principle of having students pay particular attention to aspects of a subject that they would not ordinarily attend to, and thus to see the subject in a new light.

CONVENTIONAL STRATEGY The conventional strategy is based

upon how Gombrich (1960) argues that artists learn to make images, and how the Wilsons (1974, 1976) propose that children do the same. Contrary to the

NOVEMBER 1999 / ART EDU CATION N



perceptual strategy, this strategy is based upon children learning to make pictures from studying other pictures, not from life. Further, instead of focusing upon the graphic equivalents invented and developed by children, the emphasis here is on adapting graphic equivalents long ago developed by adults. This does not mean mechanical replication but imitating, modeling, or borrowing (Duncum, 1988).

The long history of image-making does not need to be denied children on the basis that it may contaminate their creativity. Many case studies of children who draw prolifically in their own time indicate the benefits of copying from adult images (see Wilson, 1974; Wilson & Wilson 1976; Duncum, 1984). The principle here is that since knowledge is discipline specific, mastery of adult images can only be gained by examining the conventions of adult imagery. It is desirable, then, to introduce children to the illusionistic and compositional "tricks of the trade" that have been employed by professional artists for centuries. It is not reasonable to expect that children will develop advanced skills during the few short years of childhood-skills which have been developed by successive generations of artists over several centuries. Why ask children to invent the wheel? Moreover, as Gardner (1990) argues, middle childhood represents the skill building years when, following the psychological principle of literalism, children seek to do adult-like things in adult-like ways.

Teachers need to select appropriate adult images to work from, and offer a range of models that allow children to locate their own level.

RESPONDING TO ART STRATEGIES A NON-SEQUENCED STRATEGY

Among the most useful strategies for responding to art (see Duncum, 1994 for a review) is theArtmaps Compass, a non-sequenced group of questions which can be adapted to any grade (Dover, Rowe, Thomson, & Turner, 1986). The questions are grouped in a circular fashion according to eight points of a compass. The compass is a useful metaphor for teachers who with regards to responding to art feel lost at sea, and with it teachers and children alike can find treasure no matter in what direction they move.

The main questions are: "What is it?" (Description) "Who made it?" (Maker) "What is it made of? "(Materials) "How was it made?' (Art elements,

styles and technique) "Where was it made?" (Context-

Place) "When was it made ?" (Context-

Time) "Why was it made?" (Maker's

purpose or intention) "What is it about?" (Meaning and

interpretation) The numerous sub-questions seem

to be of four kinds. First, many questions require close observation such as: Is it showing signs of wear? Second, there are questions that direct attention to the conventions of presenting pictures in different contexts such as: Does it have a frame? Third, there are questions that stretch the imagination and encourage empathy such as: If you were in this

artwork, what would you smell? Finally, many questions require historical research on the part of the children such as: Does it look like other things made in the same place?

The benefit of a non-sequenced strategy is that in working with younger children it is often necessary to be very flexible. When teachers teach by taking their lead from children, it is necessary to have a strategy that provides an overall structure while making it possible to quickly move in different directions.

THE INDUCTIVE STRATEGY By contrast, the inductive strategy

involves a predetermined sequence that shifts from a basic description to sophisticated evaluation, and its use is therefore restricted to the upper grades of elementary school. Its main benefits are that children learn to distinguish objective fact from the subjectivity of interpretation as well as how to develop arguments about values. This strategy was first proposed by Feldman (1967), and its popularity is evident from the number of variants developed from it (See Duncum, 1993 for a review).

The first step, description, provides an easy entry point for those inexperienced with art (Barrett, 1992). Feldman suggests beginning with the identification of the work, but most teachers turn appraisal activities into exercises in discovery learning and leave identification to the last moment. Also, it is useful to enable students to express their first impressions (Mittler, 1980; Lankford, 1984). Left unexpressed, children's initial response can unduly interfere with the

|A ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 1999



rest of the procedure. As well, a public expression of an initial reaction provides a marker against which to measure changed perceptions. Having expressed their first impressions, students start with simply identifying the items they can see in an image: the dog, the rug, the people, the sky, and so on.

A formal analysis can start by asking what students think is the focal point and why. It is here that it is useful for teachers to have some acquaintance with formal visual elements and organisational principles.

Description and formal analysis are intended to delay premature interpretation and judgment. By following this procedure a distinction can be drawn between pictorial evidence and what Gombrich (1960) calls the "beholder's share." Children thereby learn the difference between visual evidence and their own subjectivity as well as how these are blurred. Finally, evaluation involves establishing a number of criteria against which to judge a work, including imitation, expressiveness; aesthetics; and instrumentalism. Initial description and analysis are designed to help facilitate justifiable interpretations and reasoned judgment.

CONCLUSION Elementary generalist teachers

need to grasp art in terms that are tailored to their particular circumstances. The artmaking strategies offered here allow for playfulness and spontaneity. The

response strategies help to open up the world of adult imagery. Used together, the strategies introduce children to the rich world of making and responding to art as a form of making meaning.

Paul Duncum is Lecturer in Visual Arts Curriculum for the Arts Education Research Group, School ofEarly Childhood and Primary Education at the University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia.

FOOTNOTES 'I do not mean to imply that this is all they

need to know. They also need to understand art as an inherently interdisciplinary field, whereby it is impossible to teach art well without integration especially with language and social studies. Understanding art as interdisciplinary situates art as a mode of learning as well as a body of knowledge and opens up opportunities to teach art across the timetable.

2Following curriculum practice in several countries, I have synthesized what DBAE refers to as Aesthetics, Criticism, and Art History into Responding.

REFERENCES Anderson, T. (1993). Defining and structuring

art criticism for education. Studies in Art Education, 34(4), 199-208.

Arnheim, R (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye (3rd. ed.). London: Faber & Faber.

Barrett, T. (1992). Criticising art with children. In A. Johnson (Ed.), Art education: Elementary (pp, 115-129). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Dover, H., Rowe, M., Thomson, M., Turner, P. (1986). Artmaps: Explorations of art with children. Melbourne, Australia: Ministry of Education, Victoria.

Duncum, P. (1984). How 35 children born between 1724 and 1900 learned to draw. Studies in Art Education, 26(2), 93-102.

Duncum, P. (1988). To copy or not to copy: A review. Studies in Art Education, 29(4), 203-210.

Duncum, P. (1994). A comparative review of art criticism strategies. Australian Art Education, 18(1), 41-46.

Edwards, B. (1979). Drawing on the right side of the brain: How to unlock your hidden artistic talent. London: Fontana/Collins.

Feinstein, H. (1989). The art response guide:

How to read art for meaning: A primer for art criticism. Art Education, 42(3), 13-23.

Feldman, E. B. (1967). Art: Image and idea. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles: The significance of children's drawings. New York: Basic Books.

Golomb, C. (1992). The child's creation of a pictorial world. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gombrich, E. H. (1960). Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of representation. London: Phaidon.

Johnson, M (1990). Teach your child to draw: Bringing outyour child's talents and appreciation for art. Los Angeles, CA: Lowel House.

Lankford, E. L. (1984). A phenomenological methodology for art criticism. Studies in Art Education, 25(3), 151-158.

McKim, R. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mittler, G. (1980). Learning to look/looking to learn. A proposed approach to art appreciation at the Secondary level. Art Education, 33(3), 17-21.

Nicolaides, K. (1941). The natural way to draw. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Pariser, D. (1979). Two methods of teaching drawing skills. Studies in Art Education, 20(3), 30-42.

Pariser, D. (1980). Copying the "+1" phenomenon: How children benefit from copying adult work? Canadian Societyfor Education Through ArtAnnualJournal, (11), 31-35.

Sless, D. (1978). Visual thinking. Adelaide: Radio University 5UV.

Smith, N. (1983). Experiences and art: Teaching children to paint. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wilson, B. (1974) The superheroes of J.C. Holtz: Plus an outline of a theory of child art. Art Education, 24(8), 2-7.

Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1976) Visual narrative and the artistically gifted. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 20,432-447.

Wilson, M., & Wilson, B. (1982). Teaching children to draw: A guidefor teachers and parents. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wilson, B., Hurwitz, A, & Wilson, M. (1987) Teaching drawingfrom art. Worcester, MA: Davis.

NOVEMBER 1999 / ART EDUCATION



Documents

Elementary School Art Education || What Elementary Generalist Teachers Need to Know to Teach Art Well