Teaching for the Ambiguous, Creative, and Practical: Daring to be A/R/Tography

Authors

  • Delane Ingalls Vanada University of North Carolina at Charlotte

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18432/R27H09

Keywords:

arts-based inquiry, learner-centered pedagogy, ambiguity, self-beliefs

Abstract

This purpose of this inquiry is to explore how an a/r/tographic model of shared inquiry led to deeper insights about learner-centered pedagogy. Invited to teach and redesign a very large ‘Art & Society: Visual Arts’ course at a large university with a 21st century issues-based focus, together with my commitment as a constructivist, learner-centered teacher, the current phenomenological study was born. The phenomena studied was whether a large, lecture-style class taught from a more non-traditional, non-lecture, art-as-experience, learner-centered epistemology might affect students’ balanced thinking and perceptions about their learning. Students’ perceptions, along with the regulatory role of emotions, are critical factors in motivation and behavior; students’ self-beliefs about learning and their capabilities affect their behavior, resilience, and persistence in the face of challenge.

Arts-based methods of inquiry with multiple forms of data, regarding both students’ and researcher’s lived experiences resulted in new artforms and informed praxis. After a student survey was determined the best way to poll perceptions about their learning in a more constructivist environment, the author’s Mixed Parallaxic Praxis method emerged from this study. Key findings indicated students’ increased openness to other perspectives and to cultural and creative experiences, increased engagement and a personal desire/thirst to create art, and a personal confidence to analyze art—despite their lack of former experience with artmaking or art instruction in high school. Qualitative and survey data informed how learner-centered practices enhance students’ self-beliefs about their abilities as creative learners, so important to overall motivation and capacity to learn overall.

Author Biography

Delane Ingalls Vanada, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Department of Art + Art History Assistant Professor of Art Education

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.J., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brien, D. L. (2011). Learning the “lessons of the arts”: Creativity, creative arts education and creative arts educators today. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 8(2), 96-107.

Buffington, M. & McKay S.W. (Eds.) (2013). Practice theory: Seeing the power of art teacher researchers. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Burden, R. (1998). Assessing children’s perceptions of themselves as learners and problem-solvers: The construction of the myself-as-a-learner scale (MALS). School Psychology International, 19(4), 291-305.

Claxton, G. (2007). Expanding young people’s capacity to learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 115-134.

Commeyras, M. & Montsi, M. (2000). What if I woke up as the other sex? Batswana youth perspectives on gender. Gender & Education, 12(3), 327-347.

Constantino, T. E. (2002). Problem-based learning: A concrete approach to teaching aesthetics. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education, 43(3): 219-231.

Cullen, R., Harris, M. & Hill, R. (2012) The learner-centered curriculum: Design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Eisner, E. (2002). Arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Doyle, T. (2011). Putting the research on learning into practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Eisinger, R.M. (2011, Feb. 21). Inside higher ed: Teaching ambiguity. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com

Fink, L.D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Freedman, K. (2007). Artmaking/troublemaking: Creativity, policy, and leadership in art education. Studies in Art Education, 48(2), 204-217.

Gadamer, H. (1974). Hermenutics and social science. Cultural Hermenutics, 2(4).

Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ingalls Vanada, D. (2014). Balance, Depth and Beyond: Tapping in to Design Thinking in Art Education. The International Journal of Arts Education (IJAE), 10(1), 1-14. Common Ground Publications.

Ingalls Vanada, D. (2011). Designing thinking: Developing dynamic learners in the arts. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.

Immordino-Yang, M. H. & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10.

Irwin, R. & de Cosson, A. (Eds.) (2004). A/r/tography: Rendering self through arts-based living inquiry. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.

Marshall, J. (2014). Art practice as research in the classroom: Creative inquiry for understanding oneself and the world. The International Journal of Arts Education, 8(1), 13-24.

Marshall, J. & Donahue, D. (2014). Art-centered learning across the curriculum: Integrating contemporary art in the secondary school classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, W.J. (2002). Showing seeing: A critique of visual culture. Journal of Visual Culture, 1(2), 165-181.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach in education. New York: College Press.

Palmer, P. & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart of Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Plano Clark, V. & Creswell, J. (2008). The mixed methods reader. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited.

Sameshima, P. (2007). Seeing red—a pedagogy of parallax: An epistolary bildungsroman on artful scholarly inquiry. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.

Springgay, S., Irwin, R. & Wilson Kind, S. (2005). A/r/tography as living inquiry through art and text. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(6), 897-912.

Sternberg, R. (2008). Increasing academic excellence and enhancing diversity are compatible goals. Educational Policy, (22)4, 487-514.

Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2000). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 274-280.

Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Winner, E. & Hetland, L. (2007). Art for our sake. The Boston Globe, 2 September. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/02/art_for_our_sake

Downloads

Published

2017-03-22

How to Cite

Ingalls Vanada, D. (2017). Teaching for the Ambiguous, Creative, and Practical: Daring to be A/R/Tography. Art/Research/International:/A/Transdisciplinary/Journal, 2(1), 110–135. https://doi.org/10.18432/R27H09