I’m such a sinner.

Cognitive psychology is beginning to revise theories about how people learn to think critically. Basically, research shows that “critical thinking is not a set of skills that can be deployed at any time in any context”. Instead, Background knowledge plays a huge role in thought processes. Critical thinking is complex and intertwined with with students already know, how they learn to think about subject matter, and their ablility to consider multiple alternatives. I think that the case can be made that critical thinking skills used in art making provide a basis for critical thinking in general.

Students of all levels of experience who are exposed to the arts understand that the arts value multiple perspectives.

In elementary school, where so much learning is didactic, the arts are open-ended. It isn’t that arts education is about doing “whatever you want” but that arts education teaches that problems have multiple solutions. That alone should justify the arts in Elementary Education.

However, if you were to do a study of college curriculums in Elementary Education, you would see a definite reduction in required courses for “Art for Elementary teachers” in the last ten years. The reason are multiple, but most have to with increased pressure on Universities to reduce the number of credit hours for graduation.

In a perfect world, I would encourage all teachers to study the arts and I would also encourage Art educators to expand their knowledge of other subjects. I would also suggest that art educators familarize themselves with artists who are currently working in fields that overlap other subject areas. I congratuate Arts 21 for providing information about people like Josiah McElheny and Mel Chin (I was fortunate enough to see the Mc Elheny piece in Seattle last month–terrific).

A second component of critical thinking is background knowledge. Teachers are often unclear about what students already know. Without art teachers,students still develop ideas about the arts. In an unpublished study I did a few years ago, I found that classroom teachers who were teaching the arts wanted students to learn “that the arts are easy and fun, anyone can do them, and they can be made with cheap materials, and they can be anything you want”. What this study proved is that untrained teachers teach mis-information about the arts. This, alone, is reason enough for training all teachers in the arts.

A third component of critical thinking is depth of knowledge. Understanding a subject in depth is one of the critical factors for teaching and it is also a critical factor for student success. One of my objections to focusing a curriculum around “visual culture” is that young students don’t always have the depth of knowledge to solve the problems suggested by teachers. I think it is a mistake to ask students to analyze contemporary society without being exposed to historical examples or potentially deeper levels of exploration. While it is useful to establish a baseline for background knowledge, it is equally important to expose students to a variety of models or potential solutions.

Another component of critical thinking is an awareness of metacognitive strategies. Previous research shows that ” a student who has been encouraged many times to see more than one side of an issue is probably more likely to spontaneously think about both sides of an issue when working with a problem”.

The arts are strong in helping students think of multiple solutions, but teachers can also help them learn experimental strategies or approaches to problems that come from other subjects. For example, the scientific method is easily compared to the creative process: e.g., Get an idea, Explore the idea, come up with a possible solution, revise the results). Mathematics and Writing have similar problem solving strategies.

Thinking strategies do not automatically transfer from one subject domain to another. For example, a student who has just practiced one strategy in a science class is not likely to transfer it to an art class. Conversely, art strategies are not likely to be transfered to a science class– unless teachers are aware of and able to point out the simiilarities of the strategies. It is important for all teachers to point out similarities and relationships.

This means that, in a perfect world, all teachers have a responsibility to stay informed and to understand enough about other subject matter to bring out connections. If this involves “arts integration”, so be it.

I always knew that the arts could teach anything, but what I am finding by working with standards from other disciplines is that the correlations are already required in other subjects. It is easy to point them out and clarify how they apply.

If I were currently teaching in an elementary or high school, I would spend some time this summer with the standards and identify the deeper learning in all subjects. Then I would used every opportunity to teach my students, associates,administration and parents how that learning is enhanced by the arts.

I would also be willing to change the terminology I use from elements and principles to “organization of a work of art”. I find it difficult to work with the elements and principles because of the reasons already stated. However, considering the timeline that it takes to develop and approve of standards, the Ellements and Principles won’t go away anytime soon, but teachers can get around them by teaching how works of art are organized and then moving on to something more important.

The elements and principles of art exist because artists needed a vocabulary to categorize design. As design becomes less important to art making so will the elements and principles. I also think that the field of art education is moving towards a model of curriculum that is conceptualizing learning in the arts differently and will be open to new terminology.

I like the suggestion from the Walker museum to use a terminology that clarifies what the arts do in a way that anyone can understand. Lois Hetland, Ellen Winner,et all, have taken the same approach. Although, their work has not yet been congratulated by the art education community, I think that Hetland and Winner have developed a potentially successful model for identifying artistic goals and achievement. These include: Develop craft; Engage and persist; Envision; Express, Observe; Reflect; Stretch and explore; Understand the art world.

I also think that Art Education spends too much time talking to one another, and not enough listening to other disciplines or refining our vocabulary so that what we do is immediately understandable by the general public. I see arts integration not as taking time from studio but as a way of celebrating the relevance of the arts. The more our students understand this message, the stronger advocates they can be for the making of art.

Please forgive my preachiness. It is Sunday.

Nate: I agree with you that many classroom teachers teach art: especially the good ones. As I have said, the purest, most natural form of the learning process is a creative process. I believe this is the essence of our humanity. This is the quality of our intellect that makes us superior creators. Learning and art both sprout from our curiosity and uniquely human ability to question our world and imagine what if. This is why I believe that if we are to be effective teachers in any subject we must be artists. This is the natural way of learning.

Joe: I agree with you that most of today’s classroom teachers are not prepared to teach art but, I would argue that the really good ones are in fact artists even if they don’t realize it. They tap into their students’ inner artist that compels them to question their world, imagine and express their own feelings. That’s art; isn’t it? What I’m saying is that our subject is, in fact, the essence of learning and should be the core of every curriculum. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy of education has diluted our humanity with political mandates of accountability and an organizational structure that too often suppresses the joy of learning.

Jennifer: I agree with you that there is no better way to teach our students about the visual culture they live in than by art. In fact, I am going further and saying that there is no better way to teach them any other subject than by art.

I’m sure you are all great teachers; probably better than I. The fact that you are here on this Art21 blog testifies to that. I know my suggestion was radical and impractical but I would hope that it might cause us to look at our profession from a fresh point-of-view. I believe our educational organizations are in a mess today and I believe that we art teachers hold an important key to getting it back on course.

Let me finish by giving you the statement I have posted on the door to my classroom:

The Propensity to create art is inherent in every human being. The creative process sprouts from our natural curiosity, which leads us to question who we are as individuals as well as the world around us. It is through the creative process of exploration, discovery and expression that we come to terms with life’s mysteries. Art is the tangible product of this natural behavior and is a distinctive footprint of the human quest for knowledge, understanding and self-actualization. There is no more appropriate vehicle to learning than art. There is no more sensitive assessment of learning than art. And, there is no more powerful inspiration for learning than art. Art is the core curriculum for the most successful learner.

Ahhhh, a question posed in a way that only a high school teacher can……But I would challenge your assesment that classroom teachers in elementary level don’t already teach art in their classrooms - they just may not call it art. I know they do in my school.

The question of integrating art into the core of the curriculum is an entirely different question than what you are asking. I just did a terrific project with MoMA and Columbia…where a fourth grade class works from a work of art at MoMA (we went with Starry Night) and stranded the Big Ideas, Essential Questions, Generative Topics, and Themes into projects within the different disciplines (literacy, social studies, science, & art). Then we created units of study based on Starry Night while respecting the uniqueness of each discipline. It was very, very interesting…and most importantly, it kept Art at the core of the study. This is probably even easier to do at the high school level, as the Generative Topics and Big Ideas that the high school students work with can be so interesting…

I realize my suggestion is quite radical and Joe is right that today’s classroom teachers are not equiped to teach art. And many of the reasons he gave that would make it difficult for them to teach art are correct but also relect much of what is wrong with education today.

Jennifer and other elementary art teachers need not worry about their jobs. The stagnant nature of educational buracracy will never allow that kind of change I suggest in the span of a single career. My suggestion would require a complete retooling of the education system. Nonetheless, I still firmly believe the creative process and the learning process are the same and the more our learning strays from that the less effective it is.

My suggestion would be an ideal scenario that simply couldn’t exist today. In fact, the closest we could come to that would actually be to have the art teachers taking the place of the classroom teacher.

William, I admire your courage to ask the question about elementary art teachers, but I must agree with Jennifer that elementary generalist teachers are not adequately prepared in their college programs to be the sole source for art education in grades K-5, not to mention the fact that these teachers have tremendous pressures around standardized testing that would ultimately affect the art program and the time a teacher would put into it. Even an art class once a week is better than leaving all disciplines to one teacher. We must also consider the fact that the simple act of MOVING to another place to learn about art has benefits. Kids can’t stay in the same classroom all day to learn all they are asked to learn. I will say, though, that your idea about art being at the core of teaching is certainly worth exploring for all educators. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to write a review for Jessica Hoffman Davis’ book, Framing Education as Art: The Octopus Has a Good Day. Ms. Davis asks, among other things, what can educators of OTHER disciplines learn from art teachers and how can we become more artful teachers in all subject areas? This is something I explore more and more each day, and it’s something I continue to enjoy exploring with my colleagues. How can my experiences as an artist guide my teaching, for example? How can I get my students closer to understanding how artists get inspired in a variety of ways?

As I said in the initial post, and as Susan has mentioned in her most recent entry, art educators struggle with creating a comprehensive art curriculum no matter what the grade level, but we need to broaden our language and share this on a consistent basis with our students. The “original” seven elements and principles of design are no longer enough to describe works by artists such as Ann Hamilton, Judy Pfaff, Cai Guo-Qiang, Mike Kelley or Jenny Holzer, for example. There is more to be explored and learned. Working with places like the Walker Art Center can be a tremendous learning experience for students AND teachers.

One last point I’d like to make, since William alluded to it in one of his posts, is that the AP College Board is unfortunately stuck in the mid-twentieth century. Students aren’t allowed to submit a film portfolio or do anything that remotely looks like installation art. If you are a high school student taking AP Studio Art, you had better be prepared to fit nice and neatly into one of the three portfolios offered. Still, I don’t think that the College Board’s portfolio categories can or should stifle developing curriculum for contemporary art education. If we have students in AP classes that are interested in creating and learning about contemporary art, then they should be encouraged to do so. The grade they receive in the end is just a number that’s forgotten quickly, but their experiences with the work they create and the art they engage with is what they carry with them well beyond our classrooms and studios.

So…… where are we in terms of the original post? What constitutes an integrated approach? Is there an example you’ve encountered? What does it look or sound like?

These terms have been incorporated into our tour themes and we also offer hands-on studio experiences in our Art Lab space for students to explore further after, or before, a tour. The studio portion is really just an hour sampling of one concept, and are intended to give the students and their teachers a starting off point for more work in the classroom.

I know that there are more challenges and issues involved in bringing art students on field trips, but seeing the works made by artists exploring these ideas is a rich resource for students and really kick starts the discussion. I think the artist-centered focus of the Art21 programs can also be very effective.

We have developed a web site called Art Today around these terms. And, surprisingly, the MN State Department of Education has proposed including them in the new visual arts grad standards as foundational knowledge for jr high and high school students. If this goes through ( it is not a sure thing yet), it will be much easier for teachers to include contemporary art in their curricula and still meet standards.

I didn’t intend this to be such a commercial for our programs, though! There is much work to be done supporting teachers who want to incorporate contemporary art into their classrooms. I agree that the AP standards are fairly out of date in terms of the art world today. But I also think that these new terms can provide a bridge between talking abut art and making art in the classroom.

I did a survey last year of art teachers. It asked them to rank the order of importance of all the subject areas. Math was usually ranked as the most important with Science and Language arts coming in close behind, then Social Studies and only after all the so-called core classes were listed did they list their own subject. Many of them even ranked art behind physical education. I find this shocking. Now I’m not saying that all these subjects are not important but, I believe our children are more adversely affected by a lack of art education then they would be by a lack of education in any other subject. Yes, they need to know how to balance a check book; they need to know how to fill-out a job application; read manuals and understand the workings of a society but, they also need to know who they are as individuals and where they fit-in to their world. They need to know what it means to be a human being. I doubt that anyone every climbed a clock tower and started shooting because they didn’t understand quadratic equations. Yes, we need to produce mathematicians, scientist, doctors and lawyers but, first we must nurture human beings.

I also believe art should be the core of education because the creative process and the learning process are the same. The propensity to create art is what separates us most from all other creatures and I believe that it is this human characteristic that enables our superior intellect. In other words, our creativity is the conduit to our learning. Leaning is a natural process that we should crave and we do when we are young but, we call it playing. Then this natural driving force of our learning is gradually stifled by the artificial structure of what we call an educational system. I believe all of our schools would be better served if art was the core curriculum and all other subjects were rooted in the same process we us as artists.

I’m not saying classroom teachers should simply take over the roles of art teachers. I’m saying classroom teachers should be artists.