Section One: Classic Educational Philosophies
John Dewey, Education and Experience, full text
John Dewey, Art as Experience, select chapters:
-Chapter One: “The Live Creature”
-Chapter Two: “The Live Creature and ‘Etherial Things’”
-Chapter Three: “Having an Experience”
Section Two: Contemporary Educational Theories
AAM Webinar, “Understanding the Life Stages of Museum Visitors”
Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
Section Three: Principles of Visual Thinking Strategies
Resources found at http://www.vtshome.org/pages/vts-downloads
"Introduction to Visual Thinking Strategies" by VUE staff
“Basic VTS at a Glance” by Abigail Housen and Philip Yenawine
"Jump-Starting Visual Literacy" by Philip Yenawine
“A Brief Guide to Developmental Theory and Aesthetic Development” by Karin DeSantis and Abigail Housen
“Art Viewing and Aesthetic Development: Designing for the Viewer” by Abigail Housen
“A Conversation on Object-Centered Learning in Art Museums” by Philip Yenawine and Danielle Rice
"Aesthetic Thought, Critical Thinking and Transfer” by Abigail C. Housen
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Article in Review: "Aesthetic Thought, Critical Thinking and Transfer" by Abigail C. Housen
This article, out of all of the articles I have read for this independent study, was a complete dud in terms of educational interest and development. There were a few key points that are worth mentioning, and I will take the rest of this post to discuss these things.
Abigail C. Housen has confirmed through research that there is a relationship between the Visual Thinking Strategies curriculum that she has created and the development and use of critical thinking skills throughout a range of life experiences. Through a longitudinal study conducted in 1993, Housen has confirmed that along with accelerating the pace of an individual's aesthetic growth VTS also "causes the growth of critical thinking and enables its transfer to other contexts and content" (100-101). These critical thinking skills include the following: reflection, decision-making, active looking skills, the ability to change one's mind, ability to work in groups, "to observe carefully, evaluate, synthesize, and justify and speculate," among other things (101).
Dewey himself articulated the importance of developing these skills through educational endeavors. He said that the role of education was to develop "effective habits of discriminating tested beliefs from mere assertions, guesses, and opinions [...] sincere, and open-minded preference for conclusions that are properly grounded, and [...] methods of inquiry and reasoning appropriate to the various problems that present themselves" (101).
Along with developing these critical thinking skills, Housen discovered that they transfer to our daily lives both contextually and through content. Context Transfer relates to "critical thinking strategies in a social setting different from the one in which such thinking was originally learned," while content transfer refers to using critical thinking skills within a different subject matter (106-107). Context Transfer also occurs earlier than Content Transfer (11).
So, what can all of this teach us museum educators? Does it teach us that we cannot count out VTS as a means of developing critical thinking skills? Or, does it simply teach us that developing critical thinking skills is a necessary part of learning in art museums? Surely, VTS assists in developing these necessary skills; this I do not doubt. However, as mentioned in the previous post, is this truly the sole goal of education in art museums? Is it better placed in academic settings? Should our visitors come to our museums with these skills already developed? Couldn't we go farther in terms of learning potential if this were the case? Is it our job to teach art or a way of looking at art? Does it even matter if the viewer learns in some capacity?
In the end, I am left to ponder the following questions: What is the purpose of a museum? What is the purpose of museum education? What is the purpose of art museum education? These are the issues we need to address before claiming to accomplish effective learning in our museums.
Abigail C. Housen has confirmed through research that there is a relationship between the Visual Thinking Strategies curriculum that she has created and the development and use of critical thinking skills throughout a range of life experiences. Through a longitudinal study conducted in 1993, Housen has confirmed that along with accelerating the pace of an individual's aesthetic growth VTS also "causes the growth of critical thinking and enables its transfer to other contexts and content" (100-101). These critical thinking skills include the following: reflection, decision-making, active looking skills, the ability to change one's mind, ability to work in groups, "to observe carefully, evaluate, synthesize, and justify and speculate," among other things (101).
Dewey himself articulated the importance of developing these skills through educational endeavors. He said that the role of education was to develop "effective habits of discriminating tested beliefs from mere assertions, guesses, and opinions [...] sincere, and open-minded preference for conclusions that are properly grounded, and [...] methods of inquiry and reasoning appropriate to the various problems that present themselves" (101).
Along with developing these critical thinking skills, Housen discovered that they transfer to our daily lives both contextually and through content. Context Transfer relates to "critical thinking strategies in a social setting different from the one in which such thinking was originally learned," while content transfer refers to using critical thinking skills within a different subject matter (106-107). Context Transfer also occurs earlier than Content Transfer (11).
So, what can all of this teach us museum educators? Does it teach us that we cannot count out VTS as a means of developing critical thinking skills? Or, does it simply teach us that developing critical thinking skills is a necessary part of learning in art museums? Surely, VTS assists in developing these necessary skills; this I do not doubt. However, as mentioned in the previous post, is this truly the sole goal of education in art museums? Is it better placed in academic settings? Should our visitors come to our museums with these skills already developed? Couldn't we go farther in terms of learning potential if this were the case? Is it our job to teach art or a way of looking at art? Does it even matter if the viewer learns in some capacity?
In the end, I am left to ponder the following questions: What is the purpose of a museum? What is the purpose of museum education? What is the purpose of art museum education? These are the issues we need to address before claiming to accomplish effective learning in our museums.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Article in Review: "A Conversation on Object-Centered Learning in Art Museums" by Danielle Rice and Philip Yenawine
When I asked my internship advisor what she thought about VTS, she immediately handed over to me this article (of which I already possessed) and told me I needed to read it. Although she seemed to straddle the line between loving and hating VTS, the impression she gave me was that it was valuable to ponder the pros and cons of this strategy of viewing art objects. In the following text, I will outline and discuss both sides of the argument through the writings of Danielle Rice and Philip Yenawine.
Philip Yenawine, the Pros of Visual Thinking Strategies:
-Yenawine is interested in students developing “viewing skills,” or observational skills, the ability to probe, the ability to find a multitude of meanings, an appreciate for ambiguity, and the willingness to be open to things that are unfamiliar (1+9).
-Because he believes that visitors to museums often do not have the art historical knowledge to inform their viewing, he focuses on what visitors think about art rather than what objects say (2).
-“I often seek to grasp what people already know that I can help them use to begin to decode unfamiliar work” (2).
-Teachers should act as facilitators, having their students be active participants by asking questions, not telling answers (3).
-The process, or VTS, that Yenawine teaches eliminates “information surround,” or facts and opinions about an image that are not visually realized in a work, such as biographical information on an artist (3).
-“What I want is for beginners to make a serious connection with art, gain a sense of confidence about drawing meaning from anything unfamiliar, and have a way to go about digging into objects that doesn’t require my presence. I am looking for those I teach to become self-sufficient—as quickly as possible” (4).
-Yenawine rarely corrects the misunderstandings of his students because he feels that connecting to art starts from looking at it in an active fashion (4).
-Meaning occurs in viewers when they have repeated meaningful encounters with art, rather than having a conversation with someone who knows much more (5).
-Meaning-making comes naturally when individuals have the opportunity to simply view works of art and have the freedom to observe and question its visual properties(8).
Danielle Rice, the Cons of Visual Thinking Strategies:
-VTS gathers ideas but does not create active dialogue among students (5).
-A teacher’s role is to share their experiences and perspective on art to their students. Information validates a student’s response and encourages them to continue to critique and analyze (6).
-Rice’s teaching method combines viewers’ initial responses to a work of art with carefully chosen information that the teacher presents. Here, the act of linking information is imperative (6).
-Rice claims that teachers have the responsibility to inspire their students to continue to progress cognitively, meaning that teachers must “develop the learners’ ‘cognitive dissonance’ [or] the awareness that one way of perceiving may not be enough for understanding a particular object…” (4). This happens through the process of providing information.
-Rice subscribes to the “seduction theory,” meaning that “the best thing a museum teacher can do for visitors is to help them interact with the object in such a way that they get seduced into wanting to look more closely and to know more. Information plays an important role…” (5).
WHAT DO I THINK?
What I think is very interesting about this dilemma is that it really comes down to the difference between teaching through art or teaching about art (8). As an art museum educator in training, I see these as being two very distinct and different goals--both being extremely important in our world of education within cultural institutions. The adherence to one of these goals simply depends upon an institution's overall educational goals. I understand the benefits of VTS as described by Yenawine above; however, I think the responsibility of art museum's isn't simply to develop a full range of "developmental skills" as Yenawine claims. Surely, this should be integrated into what we do at our museums, but it shouldn't be the entire story. No matter the method used, our ultimate goal should be allowing individuals to learn about the art that they see on a deeper level than they would experience on their own--whether that be through VTS or some other experience.
What I view as the perfect compromise between Rice's and Yenawine's positions is to utilize art as the springboard to delve into more important art historical points. In this way, I think the Denver Art Museum has it right. In their tours, as mentioned previously, the visual elements of the works of art on display serve as the starting points for conversations about the deeper meanings of a work of art---this includes art historical information. Ample time and energy is spent on giving validation to the point of view of visitors. In any case, this type of learning allows for an appreciation for the experience of looking at a work and the information that goes along with it.
In the end, I believe if art museum's use the most accessible part of art-the visual elements of a work-to probe deeper into a work's meaning then Yenawine's process of developing "visual skills" naturally develops.
Philip Yenawine, the Pros of Visual Thinking Strategies:
-Yenawine is interested in students developing “viewing skills,” or observational skills, the ability to probe, the ability to find a multitude of meanings, an appreciate for ambiguity, and the willingness to be open to things that are unfamiliar (1+9).
-Because he believes that visitors to museums often do not have the art historical knowledge to inform their viewing, he focuses on what visitors think about art rather than what objects say (2).
-“I often seek to grasp what people already know that I can help them use to begin to decode unfamiliar work” (2).
-Teachers should act as facilitators, having their students be active participants by asking questions, not telling answers (3).
-The process, or VTS, that Yenawine teaches eliminates “information surround,” or facts and opinions about an image that are not visually realized in a work, such as biographical information on an artist (3).
-“What I want is for beginners to make a serious connection with art, gain a sense of confidence about drawing meaning from anything unfamiliar, and have a way to go about digging into objects that doesn’t require my presence. I am looking for those I teach to become self-sufficient—as quickly as possible” (4).
-Yenawine rarely corrects the misunderstandings of his students because he feels that connecting to art starts from looking at it in an active fashion (4).
-Meaning occurs in viewers when they have repeated meaningful encounters with art, rather than having a conversation with someone who knows much more (5).
-Meaning-making comes naturally when individuals have the opportunity to simply view works of art and have the freedom to observe and question its visual properties(8).
Danielle Rice, the Cons of Visual Thinking Strategies:
-VTS gathers ideas but does not create active dialogue among students (5).
-A teacher’s role is to share their experiences and perspective on art to their students. Information validates a student’s response and encourages them to continue to critique and analyze (6).
-Rice’s teaching method combines viewers’ initial responses to a work of art with carefully chosen information that the teacher presents. Here, the act of linking information is imperative (6).
-Rice claims that teachers have the responsibility to inspire their students to continue to progress cognitively, meaning that teachers must “develop the learners’ ‘cognitive dissonance’ [or] the awareness that one way of perceiving may not be enough for understanding a particular object…” (4). This happens through the process of providing information.
-Rice subscribes to the “seduction theory,” meaning that “the best thing a museum teacher can do for visitors is to help them interact with the object in such a way that they get seduced into wanting to look more closely and to know more. Information plays an important role…” (5).
WHAT DO I THINK?
What I think is very interesting about this dilemma is that it really comes down to the difference between teaching through art or teaching about art (8). As an art museum educator in training, I see these as being two very distinct and different goals--both being extremely important in our world of education within cultural institutions. The adherence to one of these goals simply depends upon an institution's overall educational goals. I understand the benefits of VTS as described by Yenawine above; however, I think the responsibility of art museum's isn't simply to develop a full range of "developmental skills" as Yenawine claims. Surely, this should be integrated into what we do at our museums, but it shouldn't be the entire story. No matter the method used, our ultimate goal should be allowing individuals to learn about the art that they see on a deeper level than they would experience on their own--whether that be through VTS or some other experience.
What I view as the perfect compromise between Rice's and Yenawine's positions is to utilize art as the springboard to delve into more important art historical points. In this way, I think the Denver Art Museum has it right. In their tours, as mentioned previously, the visual elements of the works of art on display serve as the starting points for conversations about the deeper meanings of a work of art---this includes art historical information. Ample time and energy is spent on giving validation to the point of view of visitors. In any case, this type of learning allows for an appreciation for the experience of looking at a work and the information that goes along with it.
In the end, I believe if art museum's use the most accessible part of art-the visual elements of a work-to probe deeper into a work's meaning then Yenawine's process of developing "visual skills" naturally develops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
