Hello Blogsters! First of all, please allow me to reference the link to the article by Philip Yenawine in which this blog topic is addressed:
Article Reflection
In reflecting on student-centered practice and aesthetic stage theory:
Five basic questions were introduced which are heavily set as the fundamentals of the VTS (Visual Thinking Strategies) curriculum.
What do learners naturally do at various points along the pathway of their learning?
What abilities can we support at any moment, and what concerns should we address?
What are appropriate challenges?
How do we as teachers recognize and assess accomplishment?
After certain achievement, what comes next; how do we help her/him keep moving?
Of the five distinct patterns of thinking (Dr. Abigail Housen study), when exposed to art, the were two distinct stages that directly reflected the VTS environment:
Accountive (Storytelling)
Constructive (Building frameworks for looking at works of art)
I feel as though the internal mechanisms involving the VTS learning stages mentioned were among many of the prevalencies between my students. It would be hard to gauge as accurately, as I have High School students, where as the studies were conducted with 5th graders. The students in the study seemed to be more active and descriptive than those in high school. The accountive stage was almost obsolete in High School without vocally and formally promting students to be descriptive. I believe that Constructive viewing will become more involved as students at this level become more comfortable looking at a piece of art and analyzing it.
As the study progressed, and age became more appropriate for my viewers, I began to see more interactives that seemed a bit comparable to those of my grade levels. The discussion examples became more of a familiar zone for me, if you will. I found that students more wiling to speak, took on a more leadership style road in their convictions towards the topic, and also felt that students who said less, were less likely to listen to those who were speaking, unless prompted.
Open-ended, facilitated discussion proved to be the most successful observation from my lesson plan implementation. Once we verbally discussed the topics, much more adjective use, descriptive interactions, and imagination generation occured within the class. I fel as though aesthetic develpment growth was achieved while engaging in open-ended, facilitated discussions.
In conclusion, open-ended thinkiing promotion and adaptation in a concept art class such as mine, is without a doubt an extremely liberating idea, granted there is extra effort placed in the facilitator's corner. It is ideas such as these, and other (Writing to Win), that will generally allow focus towards open ended classrooms to thrive.
Thanks for listening.....Ragster out.
Posts
1 comments:
Hi!
I read this and the previous blog entry and was curious about your reference to the internet and your students ability to just jump into the conversation. I will be interested to see if the students approach changes over the term.
I teach Primarily middle school and used the same image (obviously) and really enjoyed my students responses especially when we discussed it (which I later realized was an oppsy... but oh well)
I felt that they may have wondered if there was a correct answer when writing. I wonder if they have some internal setting that associates a "right or wrong" answer with writing, as writing occurs more often in core acedemic classes where right and wrong are more present.... I noticed during verbal analysis, they are freer with adjectives and ponderings in general. Of course, the collective conversation does stimulate idea, still... Id be curious to find out if others notice more hesitation in the writing.
Thanks for sharing!
Amy
Post a Comment