Topic Reflection: 5

"Carefully framed teacher questioning can increase student thinking and verbalization about observations, concepts, and generalizations" (Carroll 144). 

This last week we have been addressing this issue on and off as a class.  At times in my classroom, I struggle during class discussions of master art work.  The students see what is in the piece, however don't seem to think deeper about meanings behind the objects or lack of objects.  They point out the obvious and it is hard for me to encourage the next level of thinking.  The statement above sounds so simple, the teacher should present questions that push the students to think and develop their own interpretation of the art piece.  I would have to say from experience that this is easier said than done. 

During the VTS demonstration Mary presented I was thinking to myself, yes I do this in my classroom, however I don't feel like I get the results that I should be getting.  I can not wait to try the vocabulary that Mary uses with her students and see how my students react.  In the Carroll text she references Yenawine and his VTS program.  Why haven't I heard of this already? (I guess I am here to learn new things!)  It seems so 'simple' to change the vocabulary just a little and hopefully get fabulous results.

Tom Anderson writes about how and when it is appropriate to discuss art with children in his article Talking about art with Children: From Theory to Practice.  This article is slighlty older than I (twenty-five and a half) and as I was reading I saw many ideas that still play a role in art education along with ideas that have been put to rest.  Anderson references Feldman's four stages for examining or criticizing a work of art.  I believe these have been somewhat refined in the last 25 years, however it is amazing to me that they are still a large part of the art education world.  They are still taught by university professors and used by many art teachers.  He also briefly mentions Lowenfeld stages of artistic development which are also part of teacher preparation programs.  

"If the assignment is about color values, it is incorrect to emphasize neatness in evaluation, unless that is somehow built into the assignment" (Anderson 7).  I found this statement interesting and incorrect in my opinion.  I evaluate almost every project my students turn in on neatness, this is one part of their craftsmanship grade they receive.  The students know that they must work intentionally.  If part of the idea the student is trying to convey is sloppiness than they would have to complete it in an intentional manner that convinces the viewer of their idea.  As I was reading Anderson's article he seems to believe that the student should only be graded on the identified criteria of that assignment.  I'm not sure I agree with this because I want my students to build on the concepts and show them throughout the semester in the art they create.  The new concepts of a given assignment are the 'most' important (for lack of a better word), however if they don't demonstrate previously learned skills correctly the critique would reflect this.