Vincent Lanier, professor of art education at the University of Oregon-Eugene and later the University of Arizona, wrote about his vision of art education (1969, 1975, 1984). His aspirations to improve the state of art education are priorities shared by many art educators today. Lanier’s lofty goal was to have art seen as a means to clarify and improve social, economic and political situations (1969). On a more doable level, Lanier wanted to see a strong central concept developed for the curriculum of art, which would require a team of educators and specific funding (1975). He wanted the broadest amount of people possible to grow in their aesthetic capabilities and practice aesthetic inquiry (Lanier, 1975). He felt that the time for educators to be obsessed with traditional materials should be over (Lanier, 1969). Lanier wrote often about the importance of expanding the materials studied in the art room (1966, 1969, 1984). He felt that movies interwove a variety of arts into compelling communications about current social issues and should be a prominent new aspect of study in art education (1969, 1972). Lanier proposed that movies be studied to identify roles, relationships and communications relative to current student interests, economics, politics and social situations (1969). Lanier was against alienating art from life. By validating preexisting interest in the aesthetics of students’ natural environment Lanier believed teachers could shift classroom environment from a hostile to healing setting (1969).
Vincent Lanier’s view of the needs of art education spread beyond his present into our own. Although some of his ideas may never meet reality, many of Lanier’s objectives are still valid in art education. When formulating ideas of what could be available in the year 2000, Lanier said every teacher “should have immediate access to every existing art-related visual image such as prints, paintings, photos, films, architecture, weaving etc., through cable…. contact with regional visual data banks,” (p. 13, 1976). The development of the Internet has brought us further toward this goal in twenty years than one would imagine otherwise, but we are a far cry from his goal for open access to art education for all people. If Lanier had his way, “neighborhood school-center facilities house all public learning activities from nursery and day care to kindergarten through 12 to adult education…. open 24 hours a day, 52 weeks a year,” (p. 13, 1976). This idea is not even on the radar in the present, but his ideas about obstacles to change are definitely applicable to issues today. Lanier talked about lack of knowledge in film study and teachers trying to grope and adapt to teach effectively without materials and training (1969). His ideas mirror frequent experiences of teachers now trying to keep pace with changing available technologies. Lanier wisely says, “It will be some time before the large mass of us who teach art in the public schools and train teachers to teach art in the colleges can develop any sophistication with cinema,” and today we could insert a number of new accessible formats into the space of that last word (p. 317, 1969). Many years have passed since these writings by Lanier and many current art classrooms would offend him in the narrow scope of materials used. In addition to motion pictures, pupils can analyze and produce slide-tape sequences, multi-media programs, television tapes, single photographs and photographic essays. In each case, whether the activity is viewing and discussing, or planning, acting and photographing, the content of the class will be forms of contemporary and popular visual arts. (Lanier, p. 316, 1969)Although available choice has only grown, even the basic materials Lanier set forth in his time are rarely used. It is still the age of the art studio.
It is with little effort I can latch onto the contributions Lanier has made to my own viewpoint of art education. His ideas combine well with the main theory put forth by the Owatonna Art Education Project, which I had considered little before these readings. Both Lanier and the Owatonna project remark pointedly about the importance of using art in the daily lives of students as a starting point for lesson development. By focusing on the natural interests of the students, attention to the learning and engagement in the subject will come naturally. Lanier did not want students to feel that art was separate from life, but that the art of their surroundings is relevant fodder for discussion and creation in the art room. Lanier also emphasized older students should have more time for discussion and critic in art which will help them succeed in daily living problems unlike art creating which will be continued by relatively few students. Teachings by Lanier and the Owatonna Art Education Project were impressive in how they did not judge or separate art from life. I think this is a very powerful message to learn and hope that it is one that will stay with me as I develop over time. Judgment seems to be a natural human trait, but I’m learning that doesn’t mean it is always helpful.
Lanier, V. (1966). Newer media and teaching art. Art Education, 19(4), 4-8.
Lanier, V. (1969). The teaching of art as social revolution. The Phi Delta Kappan, 50(6), 314-319.
Lanier, V. (1972). Objectives of teaching art. Art Education, 25(3), 15-19.
Lanier, V. (1975). Returning the art to art education.Art Education, 28(3), 28-33.
Lanier, V. (1976). The future of art education or tiptoe through the tea leaves. Art Education, 29(3), 12-14.
Lanier, V. (1984). Eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content. Studies in Art Education, 25(4),232-237.
Review 4: Art education focusing on discussion and use of picture art in mid 1900s
At the turn of the twentieth-century studying works of art became a popular portion of art education. A variety of reasons supported the use of picture art, together these forces made pictorial study a priority. The advent of the printing press and photography meant admired artworks could be replicated, increasing access to images for all classes of people (Stankiewitz, 2001). Academic and elite society felt artists had refined judgment and good morals, which could be transferred to others through the study of artists’ works (Stankiewitz, 2001). Educator Agnes Lodwick had a goal to “foster intelligent appreciation of pictorial art so that her students would support art as adults,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 113). Suggested methods included telling the story of the painting and its artist, asking the children questions about subject matter or stories, or making booklets of reproductions with essays. Older students also copied the pictures under study, analyzing them for principles and elements of design (Stankiewitz, 1985, p. 86).Pictorial art also helped beautify schools and classrooms. Children created artworks to bring home, so beauty could be transferred to lower and middle class family homes for just the cost of materials (Freedman, 1989). It was believed that development of aesthetic taste and beautification of the home and community environment could alleviate some burdens of hard manual labor many people experienced in the industrial age (Freedman, 1989). “The arts were viewed as capable of breaking down barriers of social differentiation and thought of as inexpensive forms of entertainment that should be available to all,” (Freedman, 1989, p. 21). Bringing happiness to the home and developing taste and cultural refinement among the people, educators felt support for the arts and tasteful commercial purchases would improve (Stankiewitz, 2001).
Mark Hopkins, Charles Norton, and John Dana all supported the study of art, each for slightly varied reasons (Stankiewitz, 2001). Mark Hopkins, president of Williams College and teacher of aesthetics as moral philosophy, advocated,“good taste, the ability to appreciate beauty in art and nature could elevate and refine the human spirit…. cultivating one mental power would tend to strengthen the rest,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 107). Like educator, Agnes Lodwick, Hopkins seemed to believe, “cultivating sound aesthetic judgment among the better classes could improve the national taste, providing a supportive environment to American art,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 107). Charles Norton, a professor at Harvard teaching art history in relation to literature, was depressed by the current state of American society (Stankiewitz, 2001). He believed modern life was ugly because “of a decline in imagination, creativity, and aesthetic standards, as well as Americans’ low intellectual quality and moral disposition. Believing that art expressed the moral temper of an age, he criticized the lack of common ideals,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 110). Norton and fellow educators felt art education and appreciation was part of civic duty for improvement and worked hard to educate and lecture widely to inform the people (Stankiewitz, 2001). John Dana differed from Norton and Hopkins in that he believed, “Masterpieces could be obstacles to the growth of the aesthetic habit,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 120).Instead of trying to emulate the elite Dana suggested people should,“begin to observe the sensory and formal qualities of everyday objects and thus build discrimination that could be applied to future consumer choices,”(Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 120). John Dana did not want people to see art as set apart from their daily lives, but to find the aesthetic qualities in all their daily interactions (Stankiewitz, 2001).
Picture study today may not be as closely tied to moral values as in the past, but perhaps due to the enormous access to imagery in the present it is more prevalent than ever. Just yesterday I was subbing in a kindergarten classroom, the instructions left for me asked that I do a picture walk with students through their big book to help them use the images as clues about the story. Students in many classrooms beyond the art room are now instructed in the value of imagery to make connections to literary understanding. Since many classes are emphasizing the value of imagery, it is important to select images that are relevant and meaningful in transmitting new understandings to students. I prefer to use images in my lessons that mix concepts of familiar and new. When Barack Obama was newly elected I found the story of an artist who had created a portrait of Obama, using frosting in different values to define the image (http://www.zillycakes.com/Obama_.php). Students engaged in a familiar topic, while learning about new concepts of value, and culinary arts. When introducing images from new cultures to students I search for visuals that will contain a natural connection point for students. Whether discussing pictures of footwear of native Alaskans or molas showing crop cultivation and transportation in Panama, students can find relationships between the pictures and their own life. Choosing images that reinforce the similarities of cultural ways of the world, I hope to build my students’ infrastructure with feelings of familiarity and relation to motivations, tasks and concerns of all people.
Freedman, K. (1989). The philanthropic vision: the Owatonna art education project as an example of“private” interests in public schooling. Studies in Art Education, 31(1) 15-26.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1985). A picture age: reproductions in picture study. Studies in Art Education, 26(2), 86-92.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). The aesthetic culture of pupils. In M. A. Stankiewicz, Roots of art education practice (pp. 105-123). Worcester, MA: Davis PublicationsZillyCakeshttp://www.zillycakes.com/Obama_.php
Review 3: Art education shifting from community connection to theory focus in 1900s
In the late eighteen hundreds to early nineteen hundreds in America, art education was shifting. Simple approaches of instruction from manuals and holiday arts were replaced by generalizations and art theory, “a necessary antecedent to the belief that art could be taught,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 86). Theories altered attention from decoration and beautification toward aesthetic theory, “often quasi-scientific, emphasizing classification, definitions and nomenclature and the control of design and color,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p.86).Early thinkers of this time period focused art education on celebration to improve American life, promote patriotism, and teach about the past (Stankiewitz, 2001). The need for an ever-increasing industrial labor force created more regimented separation of work and holiday time for people (Stankiewitz, 2001). Rather than having leisure time wasted with drinking and rude behavior, art was meant to cultivate refined pleasures (Stankiewitz, 2001). Henry Turner Bailey, who co-founded School Arts, thought, “nature, the seasons and traditional holidays were necessary counterbalances to the evils of modern life…. that holidays offered genuine motivations for manual labor,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 72). Bailey also influenced art teachers to “create a festive atmosphere for themselves and their students by paying attention to the unique beauty of each new day, by varying instructional methods and by bringing history and symbolism into their classes,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 70). There was also support for historical and patriotic celebrations by organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution who valued students learning about American traditions and heroes (Stankiewitz, 2001). Emphasis was placed on art teachers helping with civic beautification (Stankiewitz, 2001).“However art educators were encouraged to focus primarily on aesthetic reform rather than social or ethical issues,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 75). Despite deterrents from social agendas the pageant movement made strides in trying to unite people on a social front. “Between 1905 and 1925, schools and communities developed and performed symbolic spectacles intended to inform native-born citizens and immigrants of local history, democratic values and the power of the arts for social change,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, pp. 78-79).More change arose as theory shifted from social to scientific focus and worked to create vocabulary to apply to art analysis.Educators wanted to attain complex comprehension of art works. The path to higher understanding was split into different viewpoints, “two extremes—design as mastery of rules and design as intuitive creative power,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p.87). Both perspectives affected theories in art education. Walter Smith believed in design as mastery of rules and felt “students should not be allowed to invent original designs until they had learned to copy and analyze traditional motifs,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 86). He believed art was about science and law and “judging purity of taste and skill of workmanship required education,”(Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 86). The Prang art educational text supported the ideas of Smith by placing analysis of design and judgment of beauty before actual drawing (Stankiewitz, 2001). But the Prang text also presented Arthur W. Dow’s compositional focus on “line, dark-and-light (which he called notan), color beauty of arrangement over truthful representation and individual exercise of creative ability would soon replace the lingering effects of Walter Smith,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 89). Dow’s “elements of line, notan and color, were modified by five supportive principles: opposition, transition, subordination, repetition and symmetry….In the synthetic system, original composition was fostered from the introduction of the first element,”(Mock-Morgan, 1985, p. 235). Arthur Dow had learned from Ernest Fenollosa that all art shared ideas and principles that could be extracted and discussed (Stankiewitz, 2001). “Both Max Weber and Georgia O’Keeffe, students of Dow whose styles were vastly different, indicated Dow’s latitude after his students had learned the principles of the synthetic system. He believed that teaching was a process of building and the foundation should be strong,” (Mock-Morgan, 1985, p. 237). Dow believed “even beginning students could create beauty in original works,” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 96). Dow’s contemporary, Denman Ross, who also learned from Fenollosa, felt creative expression should wait until after students had plenty of practice copying and knew the vocabulary and elements (Stankiewitz, 2001). Ross seemed to believe artistic talent was a preexisting gift that needed to be developed, rather than a learned skill (Stankiewitz, 2001). Dow and Ross agreed that art education should include both art making and art appreciation (Stankiewitz, 2001). Albert Munsell, who was a friend to Ross, was also concerned with the vocabulary of art (Stankiewitz, 2001). Munsell “developed a system for naming colors in terms of five major hues—red, yellow, green, blue, and purple….The model for Munsell’s system was not a two-dimensional color wheel, but a….color tree on which some branches (hues) had greater extensions (chroma) than others,”(Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 100). Whether they believed in innate or developed skill of students, Munsell, Ross, and Dow all began to develop terminology for art education.
Before reading these chapters by Stankiewitz I had never thought about the origins of holiday art or the elements and principles of design. These were things that have always existed in my experience of art education. It is enriching to think about why and how they became dominant features of art education methodology. It is a great idea for art teachers to contribute to the beautification of the school and community.If the desire is there, it is a wonderful way for students to begin civic contributions. By working on projects to beautify the schools discussions can begin that explore designer’s thought processes. Designers look at the needs and desires of others to fuel their line of action. One could have students’ poll peers and teachers to assess what aspect of the school is in need of help. It could also foster discussion about why art can have a positive impact on a space, and how art could have a negative impact on a space. As our text suggests, students need practice to edit and refine rather than over crowding space. A discussion on editing could lead to a discussion of composition. A school community art project could also help students identify core elements of their community that should be highlighted in the artwork. There seem to be endless benefits to a school or community beautification project. Students work together, see results of their work, support their community and have pride in their contributions. I have done a number of projects with students at the request of school or community members. Each time we design a billboard, logos for hats, or thank you cards for another volunteer organization my students see real world application of their skills, and there is no insulated project that can produce the same impact.
Mock-Morgan, M. (1985). The influence of Arthur Wesley Dow on art education. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.), The history of art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference (pp. 234-‐237). Reston,VA: National Art Education Association.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Every day a festival. In Stankiewicz, Roots of art education practice (pp. 67-83). Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). We aim at order and hope for beauty. In M. A. Stankiewicz, Roots of art education practice (pp. 85-103). Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Review #2: Art Education shifting focus from Industrial to Creative Design in 1900s
In the late 19th and early 20thcentury the art classroom shifted focus from industrial drawing to Modernist student self-expression (Stankiewicz, 2001). The readings address changes brought about by shifting viewpoints on what constitutes “relevant” content in art education. This week’s texts also question the entire role of the child in relation to the learning presented. Questioning old ways in the era of Progressive social reform brought forth important contributions to current art education methods. With Modernism came ideas of: creating original designs, outdoor excursions, motivation from within, positive environment, dynamic instruction, respect for the individual, critique, learning through play, combining multiple disciplines, and subject focus on child interest (Stankiewicz, 2001). There were many people who experimented with new concepts to change the practices of art in schools. James Hall, founder of the Applied Arts Guild, championed respect for the individual, self-expression, and seeing and appreciating beauty (Stankiewitz, 2001). Irene Weir, who founded and directed the School of Design and Liberal Arts in New York City, believed the teacher should self nourish by continuing to create their own artwork, and encouraged the drawing of figures based on research (Stankiewitz, 2001). Both Hall and Weir thought “they had a duty to teach artistic technique and show examples of adult work…. the means of the work was less important that the spirit of the work…. struck a sensitive balance between enforcing technical rules and abandoning…. guidance in the name of freedom” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 29).Advocates of reform would sometimes clash. John Dewey saw art as a force for social reconstruction, but Margaret Naumberg, founder of the Walden School, wanted development of individualism to take the highest seat (Stankiewitz, 2001). While some people felt freedom should be unbridled, “Italian educator Maria Montessori—believed that freedom should be developed through choices made among structured learning activities” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 33). Despite the differences of opinion, art education was stretching its scope. No longer did the linear sweep of the industrial drawing age rule art curriculum design. “Rather than following the authority of a single expert, art supervisors had the freedom to establish their own curricula” (Stankiewitz, 2001, pp. 20-21). Some educators who functioned within this new framework were Ruth Faison Shaw and Victor D’Amico. Shaw taught in North Carolina, Constantinople, and New York using games, dramatic play and excursions to engage her students and gained their trust by listening to their discoveries and ideas (Stankiewitz, 2001). She believed student engagement informed her teaching and observation lead her to the development of finger painting as a means for children to express themselves in a new free style (Stankiewitz, 2001). Like Shaw, Victor D’Amico, who helped found the National Committee on Art Education, highly valued outdoor trips to inspire his students (Stankiewitz, 2001). He wanted his students to connect to other subject matters through art to expand understanding across disciplines (Stankiewitz, 2001). The ideas of interdisciplinary teaching and art fueled by interest are a far cry from mechanical drawing of the previous era. Also railing against old ways were Florence Cane and Victor Lowenfeld, both of whom made a big impression on the history of art education. Victor Lowenfeld wanted to “avoid the passive acceptance of authority that had seemed to contribute to the growth of Fascism” (Stankiewitz, 2001, p. 42). Lowenfeld, who helped develop doctoral programs in art in the United States, felt art’s purpose was the development of the whole person instead of focusing on the resulting art (Stankiewitz, 2001). Florence Cane, director of art at the Walden School, employed a number of methods that encouraged trial and error in student learning (Stankiewitz, 2001). She did not instruct unless advice was sought, promoted student self-inquiry, and wanted students to try painting from imagination (Stankiewitz, 2001). The importance Cane placed on student independence from teacher prompted work is very different than the step-by-step hand draw forms of Horace Mann’s drawing manual. The new teachers of art education wanted more than a process of steps completed accurately, they wanted art to be an exploration of self, community, thought and realization.What they may not have considered amid the flurry of new focus on psychological development and individualism is what it is that the child wanted from their education. The question of what the child really is or what the child needs, are questions that still haunt pedagogy on a daily basis. Paul Duncum poses more questions, “What are we educators to make of the complex realities of children? How are we to conceive of the children under our charge?” (2002, p. 98). Christine Thompson wonders, “What new understandings of children’s art experiences can we construct in place of developmental theory?” (2005, p. 18). These questions introduce yet another new era of inquiry into relevant art content in the classroom. Questions such as these demonstrate more abstract thinking and support the idea that one model does not fit all.
I feel like I would need more background context than what is available in the text to clearly understand what prompted the shift from mechanical to creative drawing in art curriculums. From what I understand, Fascism and group thinking was scary and people were trying to find ways to prevent current social circumstances from reoccurring. It’s confusing because some educators wanted to rebuild student focus on contributing to society and others wanted the child to better know the self. Is it World War One and Two that prompted the change, or the popularity of developing psychological ideas that influenced change? Or was it teachers’ own varied art learning backgrounds that drove the shift in art education? It seems that art education in America had a mix of justifications. Support for a more industrial focus stemmed from business owners who wanted to be competitive with Europe for design and building. Support for intrinsic motivated art may have come from influences on the art teachers: developments in psychology, love of one’s own art education, desire for the development of individualism and happiness. It’s so hard to say if any contributions were more significant than others, because I was not there to witness the development, and there are too many factors to perform an accurate experiment. Today, art education is a struggling field. Bureaucracy and lack of funding are big obstacles. I am a nationally highly qualified teacher in art education who has been teaching since 1997. When I moved to Minnesota I was told even if I finish my masters I may not be licensed to teach art K-12. Sadly, it does not matter what influences art education if it is strangled out of existence.
Duncum, P. (2002). Children never were what they were: Perspectives on childhood. In Y. Gaudelius & P. Spiers (Eds.) Contemporary issues in art education (pp. 97-107). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Anyone can learn to draw. In M. A. Stankiewicz,Roots of art education practice (pp. 1-21). Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Freeing the child through art. In M. A. Stankiewicz, Roots of art education practice (pp. 25-43). Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Thompson, C. M. (2005). Under construction: Images of the child in art teacher education. Art Education, 58(2), 18-23.
Reading One: About the influence of Friedrick Froebel on Art Education
Friedrick Froebel, father of kindergarten, influenced by his desire to help individuals be godlike and natural, devoted his life to supporting the good in people and providing opportunities to enjoy learning in their young lives (Strauch-Nelson, 2012). Along with a strong religious and nature background, Froebel gleaned and fashioned ideas of others, like Rousseau and Pestalozzi, into his own unique pedagogy (Stauch-Nelson, 2012). With the guidance of the Law of Unity, the Law of Opposites, and innovative thinkers of the times, Froebel changed the face of early education in Europe and the United States from strict recitation to exploration (Strauch-Nelson, 2012).Over the waters in the United States, when Horace Mann got art education rolling in the 1840s, Elizabeth Peabody was right there to herald a place for Froebelian philosophy into early art education (Sienkiewitz, 1985). It was perfect timing because Britain and America were developing drawing in schools, in response to being surpassed in skill by mainland Europeans at the World Fair in 1851 (Sienkiewitz, 1985). “Peabody points out that Froebel never established a kindergarten anywhere that he did not also establish teacher-training programs for young women” (Sienkiewitz, 1985, p. 135). In doing so, Froebel expanded the possibility of legacy for the kindergarten, and it’s journey from his homeland of Germany to England and America. So well transmitted were his ideas, that in today’s society kindergarten is seen as almost an imperative experience, timeless and precursory. He believed one could come to understand the interconnectedness of all things through concrete experience, or understanding it’s opposite (Stauch-Nelson, 21012). Tenets of his now widely accepted school of thought are the importance of: play/self-directed activity, sensory experience, and interactions with nature (Stauch-Nelson,2012).
Key Points: In 2012, Wendy Strauch-Nelson quotes Froebel as saying, “Play is the first means of development of the human mind, it’s first effort to make acquaintance with the outward world, to collect original experiences from things and facts, and to exercise the powers of mind and body” (Von Marenholz-Bulow 1877: 67). Froebel wanted youth to use their inner minds in connection with their senses to develop their thoughts.On the importance of sensory experience Sienkiewitz says, “It is not just a question of the presence of sounds, or of having things available to touch and see; it is the interaction of the youngster and his environment through the sense that makes the difference between one who is eager to explore and investigate his environment and one who retreats from it” (1985, p.130). Without access to the natural environment students are prone to develop less connections. Richard Louv calls this a “nature deficit disorder” that “will result in diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties and higher rates of physical and emotional illness”(Strauch-Nelson, 2012, p36). Strauch-Nelson shares Richard Louv’s thoughts from 2008 of forces that prevent children from connecting with nature, “loss of natural areas, technology, fear, homework, organized sports, traffic, time constraints, the structure of modern cities and an educational system that marginalizes experiences with nature” (2012, p.69). These current obstacles seen in today’s society are more than Froebel may have experienced, but he seemed to inherently understand the ramifications of student disconnect with nature. Froebel believed bringing together nature, the senses, and enjoyable play made space for a child to identify and expand his interconnecting world as a positive and communicative community member.
Reflection: I wish, and I think Froebel would too, that in modern society the principles of kindergarten held a higher honor in curriculum design efforts across the grade levels. Having recently subbed for a special education teacher at one of the rougher inner-city middle schools in Minneapolis, I learned the students are still having trouble reading, and use their street smarts and flippant attitudes to avoid doing the reading work they detest. Because of reading Froebel these past few days, I am going back with a slide show of a recent online article about the world’s ugliest basketball shoes, to see if a topic I heard them discuss today, may be the ticket to putting effort into their reading tomorrow. I know I could be written up for not following the material left by the teacher, but if the goal is to get them to read, and with the other material they wouldn’t start, I feel there is a basis to support my choice. Doing more than just copying the next page in the book, often raises eyebrows, but the way to overcome those eyebrows is to create compelling content that leaves no question to the level of learning and student engagement. Play is hard to protect. But, protecting it is important. The next day, the students did connect with the material. Where the previous day they had done zero reading.When offered interesting materials they took turn reading over forty slides, each with three paragraphs of text. When one is truly immersed, time disappears, and barriers are removed. One can absorb a myriad of skills naturally and effortlessly. Enjoyably. This is really what one seeks after all, isn’t it? To learn and to live joyously and with fresh knowledge, passing goodness to the next generation; that is satisfying work.
Sienkiewicz, C. (1985). The Froebelian Kindergarten as an art academy. In B.Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.), The history of art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference (pp. 125-137). Reston, VA:National Art Education Association.
Strauch-Nelson, W. (2012). Transplanting Froebel into the present,International Journal of Education through Art, 8(1), 59-72.
Strauch-Nelson, W. (2012). Reuniting art and nature in the life of the child. Art Education, 65(3), 33-38.