National Art Education Association

What Is Taught? What Is Learned? How Do We Know?Author(s): Paul E. BolinSource: Art Education, Vol. 52, No. 5, What Is Taught? What Is Learned? How Do We Know?(Sep., 1999), pp. 4-5Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193808 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 03:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.79 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:25:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AN EDITORIAL

What is Taught? What is Learned? How Do We Know?

Wf^ A If ^ hat is Taught? What is Learned? How Do We Know?"

These three questions form the theme for this issue of tl. journal and are funda-

mental to the enterprise we call "education." Educators and researchers in classrooms around the globe delve into these questions daily in their attempts to bring about more mean- ingful instruction and greater significance in learning. What do teachers actually teach to their students? Is a particular teacher's instruction as straightforward as she or he might think? What overt messages are sent to students through a teacher's mode of instruction? What "hidden" information do teachers present, or omit, perhaps without their own recognition of it?

Beyond instructional issues are those central to learning. What do students take with them as they leave an educational setting? How is this information linked with other academic subjects and pertinent issues outside of school? What impor- tant knowledge, skills, and attitudes do students now possess that were gained through time spent with a teacher? Is what students do learn perceived by them to be of value in the pre- sent, or will its greater import emerge in years to come? Student learning is at the heart of education.

Glatthorn (1987) discusses the critical questions of what is taught and what is learned under the umbrella of "curricu- lum." He distinguishes between curriculum that is taught by teachers and curriculum that is learned by students, along with identifying and discussing four other "types" of curricu- lum. The six classifications of curriculum designated by Glatthorn (1987) are the Recommended Curriculum, Written Curriculum, Taught Curriculum, Supported Curriculum, Tested Curriculum, and Learned Curriculum. Whereas the Taught Curriculum is, according to Glatthorn (1987), what "you would observe if you could sit there [in the classroom] every day of the school year" (p. 3), the Learned Curriculum is "the 'bottom line' curriculum-what the students actually learn. It is the most important curriculum of all and is, in many ways, the one over which we [educators] have the least control" (p. 4).

Assessment, or asking, "How do we know what has been learned?" is a vibrant issue within all areas of education, including the visual arts. Encompassing investigations of

assessment at the national and international level, to include questions surrounding what is learned by individual students, educators today grapple with ever-changing attitudes toward assessment and shifting methods of educational review. About the need to consider carefully the essential role of assessment in the visual arts, Brent Wilson (1997) writes: "If art is to take its place as a core subject, ... [then] more effec- tive assessment strategies are needed" (p. 19).

A purpose for assessment, as well as a range of emerging assessment strategies for individual students, are described byTomlinson (1999):

Teachers don't see assessment as something that comes at the end of a unit to find out what students learned; rather, assessment is today's means of under- standing how to modify tomorrow's instruction.

Such formative assessment may come from small- group discussion with the teacher and a few students, whole-class discussion, journal entries, portfolio entries, exit cards, skill inventories, pre-tests, homework assign- ments, student opinion, or interest surveys. At this stage, assessment yields an emerging picture of who under- stands key ideas and who can perform targeted skills, at what levels of proficiency, and with what degree of interest. (p. 10)

Many of these forms of learning assessment listed by Tomlinson (1999), as well as a wide range of instructional strategies utilized by teachers, are found within the following articles. Billie Sessions begins the discussion by questioning the content of what has been traditionally taught in ceramics classes. Drawing on the world of contemporary ceramics, she builds a case for the infusion of much more contextual study within this area of the art curriculum. Art criticism is the focus of George Geahigan's writing, as he uses the words of his pre- service art education students to articulate the depth of engagement these students bring to their reflection on the 'World of the Work." Using the artwork of Frida Kahlo and Leonora Carrington in her teaching, Shirley Hayes Yokley argues forcefully for embracing a critical pedagogy in art education.

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1999

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.79 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:25:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LETTER S T LETTER S T

E D I E D I T O R T O R

The following two articles shift the settings of teaching and learning away from schools. Susan Witmer and Julia Borst discuss a very successful teach- ing and learning program involving high school students who act as docents with their peers in an art muse- um. J. Ulbricht reflects on the impor- tance of "invisible" art teachers, including parents, and asks what teach- ers could learn and put into practice through studying students' influential role models outside of school. This issue of the journal concludes with a compelling "Cautionary Tale" told by Enid Zimmerman, who offers firsthand insights into some of the potential pit- falls that can be encountered in large- scale arts assessment programs.

More often than not, critical ques- tions about teaching, learning, and assessment are extremely complex and difficult to answer. They are, how- ever, at the core of what we as art edu- cators must think about and work to comprehend. The challenge of wrestling with such formidable ques- tions, for the sake of our students, should be what motivates us in our efforts and what we should explore as truly essential and meaningful in our profession.

Paul E. Bolin Editor

REFERENCES Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum renewal.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wilson, B. (1997). The quiet evolution: Changing theface of arts education. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Education Institute for the Arts.

The following two articles shift the settings of teaching and learning away from schools. Susan Witmer and Julia Borst discuss a very successful teach- ing and learning program involving high school students who act as docents with their peers in an art muse- um. J. Ulbricht reflects on the impor- tance of "invisible" art teachers, including parents, and asks what teach- ers could learn and put into practice through studying students' influential role models outside of school. This issue of the journal concludes with a compelling "Cautionary Tale" told by Enid Zimmerman, who offers firsthand insights into some of the potential pit- falls that can be encountered in large- scale arts assessment programs.

More often than not, critical ques- tions about teaching, learning, and assessment are extremely complex and difficult to answer. They are, how- ever, at the core of what we as art edu- cators must think about and work to comprehend. The challenge of wrestling with such formidable ques- tions, for the sake of our students, should be what motivates us in our efforts and what we should explore as truly essential and meaningful in our profession.

Paul E. Bolin Editor

REFERENCES Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum renewal.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wilson, B. (1997). The quiet evolution: Changing theface of arts education. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Education Institute for the Arts.

Dear Editor, Peter Smith suggested that I share

with your readers a few further facts about The Chautaqua Industrial Art Desk, with its scroll and handbooks, which he described in yourJanuary '99 issue of Art Education. Peter and his co- author noted the hint of eugenics in the Foreword to the handbook, Child Life I had reprinted, in a recent book', a page from the Foreword, for its claims of the influence of industry on society and on school art.

My copy of Child Life, published by Lewis E. Meyers and Company, was copyrighted in 1913 by Powers, Meyers, and Company, with no mention of the 1910 copyright by the Worlds Events Company. My copy of the scroll pro- vides a date earlier than that suggested by Peter. Its title panel reproduces medals awarded at exhibitions in New York (1891) and Quebec (1894); it shows patent dates in 1895 and 1898, and copyrights by Powers Brothers (1895), Powers, Fowler and Lewis (1898), and Powers, Highly and Company (1900).

Authorship was a problem for Peter and his colleague. Mathilda Vanderpoel ("Supervisor of Juvenile Department of Art Institute, Chicago") was the author of most of Part One of Child Life, "Child Activities in Art and Industry," a set of monthly arts/crafts projects, but not of the few added articles. Part Two offered anonymous "Stories of Great Industries"-cotton, wool, and silk- with no reference to art or craft.

I don't know when this contrivance was abandoned. But I have a copy of Master Book One [Complement to

Dear Editor, Peter Smith suggested that I share

with your readers a few further facts about The Chautaqua Industrial Art Desk, with its scroll and handbooks, which he described in yourJanuary '99 issue of Art Education. Peter and his co- author noted the hint of eugenics in the Foreword to the handbook, Child Life I had reprinted, in a recent book', a page from the Foreword, for its claims of the influence of industry on society and on school art.

My copy of Child Life, published by Lewis E. Meyers and Company, was copyrighted in 1913 by Powers, Meyers, and Company, with no mention of the 1910 copyright by the Worlds Events Company. My copy of the scroll pro- vides a date earlier than that suggested by Peter. Its title panel reproduces medals awarded at exhibitions in New York (1891) and Quebec (1894); it shows patent dates in 1895 and 1898, and copyrights by Powers Brothers (1895), Powers, Fowler and Lewis (1898), and Powers, Highly and Company (1900).

Authorship was a problem for Peter and his colleague. Mathilda Vanderpoel ("Supervisor of Juvenile Department of Art Institute, Chicago") was the author of most of Part One of Child Life, "Child Activities in Art and Industry," a set of monthly arts/crafts projects, but not of the few added articles. Part Two offered anonymous "Stories of Great Industries"-cotton, wool, and silk- with no reference to art or craft.

I don't know when this contrivance was abandoned. But I have a copy of Master Book One [Complement to

Master Scroll A] Beginning the Use of Tools and Materials, by Jean Lee Hunt and Jessie M. Todd, published by the Foundation Desk Company, Chicago, copyrighted by Lewis E. Meyers and Company, and identified as Chautauqua Foundation Equipment-book, scroll, and desk. The copyright date is 1926, though a final footnote shows that this copy could not have been printed before 1930. Thus this quaint home school device was still marketed in the hey-day of progressive education, but as "An Instrument of Creativity." Parents were advised that "Creative Activity" would be "the basis of success and satisfaction in every avenue of human endeavor." Jessie Mabel Todd was important in Chicago art education-a younger col- league and sometime co-author with William Whitford at the University of Chicago, and instructor in the Laboratory School founded by John Dewey. The art activities presented in Master Book One (c1926) were ordinary seat-work and handicraft of the period. But Jessie Todd in 1933 reported that her students in the Laboratory School delighted in the work of such modern painters at Matisse, Kandinsky, and Severini.2 The accompanying scroll (1930?) therefore would be a document of keen interest to Peter Smith and me, and perhaps to others.

Foster Wygant

ENDNOTES 'Wygant, F. (1997). School Art in American

Culture Supplement: 1900-1915. Cincinnati: Interwood Press. 116-117.

'Todd, J. and Gale, A. (1933) Enjoyment and Use ofArt in the Elementary School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 4.

Master Scroll A] Beginning the Use of Tools and Materials, by Jean Lee Hunt and Jessie M. Todd, published by the Foundation Desk Company, Chicago, copyrighted by Lewis E. Meyers and Company, and identified as Chautauqua Foundation Equipment-book, scroll, and desk. The copyright date is 1926, though a final footnote shows that this copy could not have been printed before 1930. Thus this quaint home school device was still marketed in the hey-day of progressive education, but as "An Instrument of Creativity." Parents were advised that "Creative Activity" would be "the basis of success and satisfaction in every avenue of human endeavor." Jessie Mabel Todd was important in Chicago art education-a younger col- league and sometime co-author with William Whitford at the University of Chicago, and instructor in the Laboratory School founded by John Dewey. The art activities presented in Master Book One (c1926) were ordinary seat-work and handicraft of the period. But Jessie Todd in 1933 reported that her students in the Laboratory School delighted in the work of such modern painters at Matisse, Kandinsky, and Severini.2 The accompanying scroll (1930?) therefore would be a document of keen interest to Peter Smith and me, and perhaps to others.

Foster Wygant

ENDNOTES 'Wygant, F. (1997). School Art in American

Culture Supplement: 1900-1915. Cincinnati: Interwood Press. 116-117.

'Todd, J. and Gale, A. (1933) Enjoyment and Use ofArt in the Elementary School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 4.

SEPTEMBER 1999 / ART EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 1999 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.79 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:25:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions