A Theoretical Renegade... Musings on Art Education and education theories and jargon

I've been asked, "Are you a TAB (Teaching for Artistic Behavior, or Choice teacher; or are you a DBAE (Discipline-Based Art Education) teacher?"  I wonder: why do I need to be one or the other?  (especially since I've been trained in neither!)

The short answer is "I'm neither one, or a little of both, perhaps".   I'll admit that I've listened to and been confused by the many discussions on the topic, particularly in the Facebook Art Teacher group, and I'm not going to go into much detail about the specific meaning of TAB or DBAE here, because there's a wealth of info available out there on the interwebs, if you don't already know what they are all about.  The fact is, neither TAB nor DBAE even existed as an art education theory when I began teaching, so obviously learning about and using them was not part of my teacher training program or my "repertoire".

Let me backtrack - I've been around a long time....  I graduated from college with a bachelor's degree in Art Education in 1974, and began teaching in fall of 1976.  Years later, an art teacher friend, who graduated from college with me, talked about his disappointment with the college for lack of preparation.  I was shocked, because I didn't know what I didn't know, and had functioned just fine all those years without knowing it!  (Does that even make sense? Are you still reading?)  The truth is, a lot of the education and specifically art education theories that we know about these days, simply did not exist during my college years.  I can't blame my college or the professors for that, and neither should my friend.  If you have some faith and trust in me and what I present on this blog, I suppose this information may make you wonder why I have any authority at all.  But I hope you'll wade through this post anyhow, and read through the the end before you make up your mind about me.  Because, simply knowing lots of jargon and all the latest popular theoretical practices do not necessarily make someone a good teacher.  So perhaps I don't need to be ashamed of being a "theoretical renegade". 

In NY state in the 70's, in order to make my teaching certification permanent, the requirement was simple: 30 graduate hours within 5 years after obtaining my temporary certificate (upon graduation).  And those credits didn't necessarily have to all be in education, or even in art.  There was no certification test, no required masters degree, no thesis to write, and no annual professional development requirements once you achieved permanent certification.  My 36 grad hours (I earned 6 hours beyond the basic requirement) were achieved in a combo of studio art, art history, education, sociology, and environmental geology, but I have no advanced degrees.  This was not the "lazy way out"; I was an excellent student, not a slacker.  Advanced degrees and tests were simply not required or expected, and of course were an additional expense.  So, no masters degree.

Common educational terms used these days simply did not exist or were not used yet in the ways we know them today.  When I began teaching, for example, I had never heard of or been exposed to these terms: rubrics (hey, we called them charts), curriculum mapping,  portfolio assessment (at that time, the term "portfolio" meant a folder filled with artwork, and instead of the word "assessment", we usually used the word "test"), authentic assessment, vertical alignment, benchmarking, and many,many more.  And many disorders didn't exist, or, I should say, hadn't been identified yet, at least as an acknowledged "thing", when I started teaching: Asberger's Syndrome, spectrum disorders, attention-deficit disorder, and so on.  As a matter of fact, we did see a film on autism in a required undergraduate Intro Psychology class, but it basically showed institutionalized  non-verbal children banging their heads against walls. Things have changed, a lot.
 
I had been teaching 10 years before I ever encountered a child labeled as ADD or ADHD.  I had been teaching probably 20 years before I first encountered a child labeled as having autism, and actually, his initial label was not autism, but instead was Sensory Integration Disorder.  By the time I retired, it had become quite common to have students labeled as having ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder, or even Oppositional Defiant Disorder, integrated into regular classes at all grade levels.  Were all these disorders there all along, but the kids were simply unlabeled, with unusual behavior?  Maybe a few, but honestly, I do not believe that kids with these disorders existed in the huge numbers that they do today.  I would have noticed.

If you've been reading this blog for a while, perhaps you've encountered some of my other discussions on similar topics.  You can find these posts in the following links: from March 2011 there's "They don't tell you this in your college art ed program"; from April 2012, there's "Ruminations - my hippie education and retirement plans"; from June 2015 there's "Jargon-du-Jour or Jurassic Jargon?"

But anyhow, back to what I was talking about at the beginning of this post -  Does the fact that I am neither TAB nor DBAE mean that I am bad teacher?  I do not think so.  Over my years teaching elementary, I developed, using my knowledge and experience, a program to be proud of.  I made a commitment to develop and present lessons that had students exploring a wide variety of materials.  I exposed them to a variety of famous artists and art styles and movements, as well as cultures from around the world.  I encouraged my students to think, explore, discover, make decisions, work both independently and in collaboration, and laugh.  I encouraged creative decision-making within the framework of the work I assigned.  I discouraged whining or complaining (actually that was my #1 classroom rule), and encouraged kindness and acceptance.  I made sure that each year, all students at all levels worked in both 2 and 3 dimensions, were exposed to and became comfortable with art vocabulary, and that they drew and painted from observation, as well as worked from their imaginations. I taught the Elements of Art and Principles of Design by incorporating them into everything we did.  My students learned to take care of their materials and become independent thinkers and positive members of the class.

If all my talk of independence and decision-making this sounds like TAB, you'd be wrong.  My classroom did not have centers, for example, like most TAB classrooms.  All students worked on the same projects or assignments at the same time, using the same materials, but had the ability to make choices within those parameters.  I believe I'm not meeting my responsibility as an educator if I just let students explore whatever they want, without specific direction and limitation.  I don't think someone can become an artist simply by being given the "stuff" of art and told to use whatever they want. I know in TAB, the focus is on making students artists.  But I don't think we can become an artist unless we can become confident and skilled at and knowledgeable in the "stuff" of art, any more than a student can automatically become a musician without learning how to make the instrument respond properly and how to read music, and so on.  The learning needs to come first.   A doctor isn't a doctor just because they want to be one.  They need to learn anatomy and chemistry and biology and all of it, and also need the education and hands on practice to properly uses the tools of medicine.  Am I making sense?

I'll admit I don't know everything there is to know about TAB, since I've never been trained in it, so perhaps you may think that I'm speaking from ignorance.  And I suppose you might be right.  A little aside here: I attended a workshop on TAB at my state conference a few years ago.  The presenter had us push aside the chairs and sit in a circle on the floor.  I was turned off immediately.  My not-young body is not happy sitting on a floor and even more unhappy at the prospect of figuring out how to get up.  And nothing she said during my 50 minutes on the floor convinced me that teaching by letting students make all their own choices was the right way for me to teach, or that it would even be allowed in my school, or that it would in any way protect my job and my program.  So I am sorry for all the wonderful TAB presenters and teachers out there, that they were represented in this way.  

Anyhow, back to what I was saying a paragraph ago....  If I had been taught art by being allowed to make all my own choices, I would never have been exposed to so much of the art world.  I am thankful for the requirements that forced me out of my comfort zone, and for a college program that directed me to not only have a concentration in one art media, but also to explore the others.  The result was that, in my college years, I took courses in many different mediums; some, like painting and photography, were "in my wheelhouse", but others, like ceramics, and printmaking, and sculpture, and gold and silversmithing, were not.   It made sense that if I was going to be teaching art, I'd better have as broad a knowledge base as possible, because I knew I'd have to teach it all.

I think structure and limitations can be a challenge and also a bonus.  Figuring how to to create within the framework of some limitations will encourage creativity, not discourage it.  I relate it to my book club. We currently have 10 members, and different person picks the book we will read each month.  We don't just read whatever we choose.  In this way, I've been exposed to authors and genres I would never have chosen on my own, often opening my eyes to something really exciting.

Does this mean my projects, before I retired, were cookie cutter?  Hell, no!!!  As I said before, my students made many independent choices within the framework of the assignments I gave.   I think that is the key.

Does my lack of training in DBAE and TAB, my lack of a master's degree, and the fact that I've taken no fancy certification tests mean that I've been a less effective teacher than those trained today?  I think if you ask the administrations I worked under, my students, and their parents, the answer would be NO.  Some of the most beloved and effective teachers I know were those whose educational backgrounds were similar to mine, in the era before jargon and acryonyms and labels and over-testing became so popular.  All the fancy terminology in the world won't make you a good teacher unless you can take your knowledge base and put it to use effectively with your students.   But this doesn't mean that I haven 't been open to learning.  Please don't presume that I'm cocky and think that I know better than anyone else.  I don't.  I'm talking about my own personal experience and what has worked for me.  Your situation could be totally different.

Was I perfect? No.  Sometimes I was disorganized, even after extensive planning.  Sometimes I was frustrated by a behavior I didn't understand.  Sometimes I lost track of time, and sometimes I came up with ideas that didn't work as planned.  (Actually, that happened again today; but that story is for another blog post.)  But my students were joyful and productive learners, and created art that they were proud to display for others to see.

Did we do a lot of writing in our art classes?  That's a big topic that I will save for a different blog post, sometime in the coming months. 

By the way, also more recent than my college education and my earlier teaching years are The 8 Studio Habits of Mind, Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and The Madeline Hunter Model of Mastery Learning, to name a few of many teaching models, programs, and theories I've encountered in past years.  Have I ever been officially trained in all of them?  No.  Oh wait!  I've left out Bloom's Taxonomy!  That's because, that's one thing that has actually been around long enough to have been learned during my college years.  Though I admit,  I still like calling it Bloom's Taxidermy.... 

Then there's concepts and techniques like Big Ideas, Bell-Ringers, exit tickets, graphic organizers (including Venn diagrams), think/pair/share, and so on.  These all come and go with new names every few years.  But you know, this constant flux isn't only in art.  When I first switched from teaching high school to elementary school, the elementary reading teachers were all gaga over Whole Language.  A few years later, they had moved from a literature based program back to phonetics and grammar, and then a few years later another change....  And the math methods have changed tons of times too.

My point here is that new ideas and concepts and methods don't necessarily mean the previous ideas and concepts and methods were all wrong, and don't mean that the students that were taught using them didn't get a good education.  I could include a discussion of technology here, too.  All of us who were educated in the age before the internet and fancy technology may have learned differently, but that doesn't mean it was inferior.  I believe that I got a good education.  I believe that my son, now 27+ years old, got a good education, enough to make him a confident intelligent well-rounded professional, socially conscious young adult.  And I hope that we do whatever we can to make sure our students today get a good education too.  And occasionally, that might mean you become a theoretical renegade like me!!!

By the way, thanks to my four goofy DragonWing Arts students for providing me with some photo breaks for this blog post!

"Jargon-du-Jour" or Jurassic Jargon?

I guess I'm kind of a practical gal.  I don't care for fancy jargon when there's an easy way to say something, and I particularly don't like the endless string of ever-changing acronyms and "jargon du jour" that has become pervasive in education.  (I don't even much care for the word "pedagogy", but even worse is this version: "pedagogical".  I get tongue-tied every time I try to say it, and then end up making a total fool of myself!)  Maybe I'll invent a new and timely term for how I prefer to talk about education: Jurassic Jargon.  I can call it JurJar, if we need a shortened version.  JurJar will consist of just saying what you mean, without inventing a fancy newfangled label for it.

(Note: this isn't going to be a post that naturally lends itself to images, so for fun I've just selected a few of my old photos to break up the reading a bit for you! They have no significance in relation to the post, except for whatever significance you might want to attach to them! 

When I took my undergraduate college education classes, in the early 70's (yeah, that makes me officially a dinosaur, though I'd prefer to be called a baby-boomer), I really didn't encounter a whole lot of education jargon, other than the phrases "the open classroom" or "schools without walls" (which in the end was a really bad idea and did not work; most of the schools built that way have long since put up walls).  Oh, and there was "sensitivity training", which was a touchy-feely sort of experience that I personally did not care for, but one of my ed professors, in a required class, loved.  It was everyone's favorite class, but not mine.  I was very reserved back then (yes, it's true!) and I hated going to that class, and doing stuff like falling backwards and trusting that I would be caught, and sitting touching backs with a partner and sharing how we felt, and so on.  Ick.

The one really worthwhile bit of 70's terminology I learned is "the stages of artistic development", courtesy of Lowenfeld's Creative and Mental Growth.  I believe that everything I read about and learned in that book still applies today, which is nice, because though our world changes, and we've seen major technology advances, kids are still kids, going through those basic stages, aren't they?  And knowing those stages, and what is developmentally appropriate at certain stages of development, I kind of wonder if some of this "21st Century Jargon" is really necessary.  I know that for me, it causes me to shut down, because I can NEVER remember what any of it means.  It only serves to confuse and befuddle. 

Suppose you want to apply for a grant or need to write a report - well, it seems you've got to have some fancy jargon in order to impress!  Did you know there's actually an Educational Jargon Generator on the internet?  They suggest that you "Amaze your colleagues with finely crafted phrases of educational nonsense!", which describes exactly what I think about much of this jargon. 

On that site, I saw quite a few phrases that I've often heard recent years, that I hadn't previously encountered in my first 25 years or so in the classroom (I taught for 36 years and have been retired for 3).  These included gems such as:  "across the content areas", "differentiated lessons", "critical thinking", "scaffolding", "stake-holders", "cohorts", "performance-based", "flipped classroom", "Big Ideas", "multiple modalities", "brain compatible", "technology infused",  "metacognition", "enduring understandings", "standards-based"...  YIKES.  I just listed 15 of terms and phrases from the site, all of which I somehow survived without (and flourished) for decades!  And there's so many more..........  Do we really need all this pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo to be a good teacher?

I recall the first time I saw the word "exemplar" used on a blog post, a few years ago.  I thought "Huh??"  When did my mock-up stop being my teacher "sample" or "example", and become a fancier word?  And why? What the heck is wrong with an example being an example??  Why does it have to be an exemplar now?  Sheesh!  And when did the word "rubric" arrive in ed jargon? I remember the first professional development program that I attended where the word was used, and I wondered - when did a chart become a rubric??  Who invented a new word, and why?  How did it sneak up behind me?

And in art ed, sometime in the 90's, DBAE (data based art ed, whatever that means) emerged on the scene, sneaking up on me to describe, perhaps, something that maybe I'd sort of been doing all along.  And now of courses there's TAB (Teaching for Artistic Behavior), choice-based art ed, PLN's or PLC's, VTS (Visual Thinking Strategies; which I recently discovered I have been doing for many years without the label), and there's Design Thinking.

There's Essential Questions and Enduring Understandings.  There are Model Cornerstone Assessments and Anchor Standards.  And performance indicators and learning outcomes, and  value-added, and best practices.

And what the heck is constructivism?

There's formative assessments and summative assessments, and performance based assessments, and data based assessments, and authentic assessments.  And benchmarks.  And metacognition.  And curriculum maps, and vertically aligned curriculum. If you think for even a minute that I can remember what all of these terms mean, you would be wrong. 

And the silly names for things that we teachers always did, but that never had names before: for example, there's think/pair/share, and exit tickets, and bell-ringer activities (when I hear this term, I must admit that I picture Quasimodo). And there are names for the obvious: differentiated instruction and high stakes testing, for example.  Duh.

And here's a few acronyms you might have encountered in recent years: SLO (student learning objectives), SWK (no, not sealed with a kiss; it is "students will know"), KWL (know, want to know, learned; at least I think that's what it stands for).  There's AYP (annual yearly progress), RTI (response to intervention), and ELL (English language learners; when did this label change from ESL - English as a second language?  And why?)

I could keep going, and fill a few more paragraphs with terms, phrases, and acronyms from just the past few years, but I have a feeling that you probably all stopped reading several paragraphs ago because this is just so dreadful....

While writing this post, I came across an article that you might like, called "The Joys of Educational Jargon". I'll end this post with that link for your reading pleasure, and with some open-ended questions for you, below.

• Does anyone else feel as frustrated as I do with the proliferation of jargon? 
•  Does the jargon change the way you do things, or just give new names to what you already do?  
• Can you remember what all these things even mean and easily incorporate the words in your conversation?
• Does the jargon-du-jour improve your teaching? 
• Or are you like me and your brain starts to cloud and fog when the jargon deluge arrives? (Perhaps we can call it the jargon-pocalypse?)  
• And finally, can you comment and tell me all the acronyms and terminology that I might have missed in this post?