Seguridad Vial

In this paragraph, the origins, advocacy and critique of postmodernist theories and socio-centric art pedagogy are discussed.

With postmodernism evident as a trend since the 1980s, socio-centric art pedagogy has begun to take hold (McArdle & Piscitelli, 2002; Twigg & Garvis, 2010). Grounded in the pragmatist movement, this vision invests its philosophy and theory in the power of art and art education to enliven individuals and society (Efland, 1990, 2004; Siegmund, 1998). An early indicator of this position was John Dewey who describes art as an aspect of community experience capable of bringing forth individual and social changes (Efland, 1990; Lim, 2004). In Dewey`s description, the world of ‘art’ should not be confined only to the world of ‘fine art’ but seen broader as lived experiences permeating one`s entire life (Lim, 2004). Learning in art should therefore focus around the resolution of daily problems (Efland, 1990; Lim, 2004). This school of thought challenged the idea of art as a subject for study and emphasized instead the study of art in society. Advocates of this vision argue the need for the integration of art into other curriculum areas (Siegesmund, 1998; Ulbricht, 1998). As Stuhr (1995) explains,

Art taught in an interdisciplinary fashion is better able to reflect and create understanding about the social, cultural, and political conditions that it is part of (cited in Siegesmund, 1998, p. 204).

In order for children to learn within meaningful socio-cultural contexts, art is properly used as an interdisciplinary tool of analysis to explore wider social issues

within an integrated curriculum framework (Efland, 1990; Siegesmund, 1998). Accordingly, the role of art education can be subsumed into enhancing children`s learning in other areas of the curriculum.

In the field of early childhood education, the ‘Reggio Emilia Approach’ can be considered representative of this approach. Within the Reggio approach, poetic languages4 and communication networks are highly valued (Malaguzzi, 1993; Hertzog, 2001; Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001; Rinaldi, 2006; Vecchi, 2010). Art in Reggio educators` terms is a ‘visual’ language which can be used to satisfy children`s expressive and communicative needs when words are either inadequate or unavailable (Vecchi, 2010). Through the use of different media and symbolic systems children are enabled to depict their understanding in an imaginative way. This process is considered by Reggio educators as integral to the development of one`s cognitive capacity (Vecchi, 2010). A good example of this can be found in the study of ‘the city of Reggio Emilia’ in which Reggio children were expected to graphically represent how is the city related to their own lives (Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001). With scaffolding from teachers and support of peers, children began to seek relationships between concrete knowledge (e.g. facts that shaped the development of their city) and their life world (Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001). They progressively changed and re-defined their perceptions of the city and its relationship to their daily living which were manifested in their gradually refined artworks (Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001). It is through the process of active and ongoing engagement with representing, expressing and communicating, by self and with others, children`s thinking was brought to reflect critically and dig deeply. Seen in this light, art making does facilitate the quality of thought. It is not surprising also that Reggio children are offered opportunities and sufficient time to ‘play with’ variable art media (Hertzog, 2001). They are encouraged to explore the rich structure and expressive possibilities of symbolic languages via a shared artistic inquiry (Malaguzzi, 1993; Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001). The importance attributed to the more co-constructive patterns of interaction and the role of significant others in enhancing children`s artistic growth is not to undervalue children`s personal inclination. Children, it is argued, still have every right to intuitively express themselves in many different ways, but collaborating with

4 _{Poetic languages refers to “forms of expression strongly characterized by expressive or} aesthetic aspects such as music, song, dance or photography” (Vecchi, 2010, p. xviii).

others drives and extends this learning (Malaguzzi, 1993; Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001). Teachers in Reggio Emilia are not just instructors, but yet are positioned as more than facilitators. They take on a role as ‘co-learner’ who learns with children, and co-constructs knowledge with the children in a climate of cooperative learning. As Vecchi (2010) claims,

Teachers should not merely transmit circumscribed ‘truth’ in various disciplines, but rather to stand by children`s sides together constructing contexts in which they can explore their own ideas and hypotheses individually or in groups and discuss them with friends and teachers (p. 28). By observing what children actually do when engaged in art, and talking with them about their art making or artworks produced, teachers can not only sustain and extend children`s interests and involvement (Bae, 2004; Wright, 2012b), but also learn more about the children (Fraser et al., 2008; Vecchi, 2010; Wright, 2012b). As Fraser et al (2008) put it,

Only when teachers get closer to children`s thinking, processing and decision making, can he/she adapt and refine lessons to take cognizance of children`s ideas, needs and interests and address the problems they are grappling with (p. 11).

Postmodernist theory in art education is concerned fundamentally with the resolution of daily problems via a community of inquiry. Related to this is the idea of ‘art as a means to an end’, the end being individual and social change. Teachers embracing this vision see their role as ‘co-constructors’ who work alongside children. By co-constructing a range of understanding on an equal basis, both teachers and children are able to refresh and extend their existing skills and knowledge.

Although socio-centric approaches to art education have enjoyed increasingly popularity, there are those who have pointed to the possible disadvantages. Eisner (1988) for example, questions the idea of conceptualizing art as an instrument rather than a discipline: When art is used primarily as a tool to carry out inquiry, rather than a subject matter of inquiry, it loses its status as a ‘legitimate’ discipline (cited in Siegesmund, 1998). Smith (1985) too, argued that the unique qualities of art, its history, standards and forms of evaluation can be ignored when art is only used as a vehicle to facilitate teaching across disciplines (cited in Ulbricht, 1998). It is because of this concern Smith (1985) insisted that art should remain as a

discipline.

Overall, this model appears to emphasize a collaborative construction of knowledge within a social context.

This review of influential visions of Western art education indicates a conceptual and practical diversity. Varying theories and practices sometimes complement yet sometimes directly challenge each other. Multiple forces pulling in different directions can result in ambiguity and uncertainty, leaving teachers struggling with where to stand, let alone bringing together principles and practices into a cohesive praxis (Kindler, 1996; Barnes, 2002; McArdle & Piscitelli, 2002).

Even so, teachers still have every right to determine what they think is important for their students. The differences each teacher ‘sees’ in curriculum not just reflect the variety of interpretations that can be achieved. It also indicates to teachers` own priorities and values, which invariably affect their practices in classrooms. Nuthall (2002) uses the term ‘rituals of practice’ to describe these teachers` taken-for-granted practices (cited in Fraser et al., 2008). Fraser et al (2008) add support to this notion by reminding that, “these unconscious rituals of practice can either support or constrain what happens when children are learning through and in the arts” (p. 15).

All of the above-mentioned indicate the complex dynamic among contrasting perspectives: policy makers (the intended 5 curriculum), teachers (the implemented6 curriculum), learners (the experienced7 curriculum), and perhaps parents and other influential factors (the hidden8 curriculum). Considering similar incongruities in the revised art curriculum—the intended curriculum, the question must arise of what emphasis is interpreted and placed on the curriculum during implementation.

5

The intended curriculum refers to the aims and content enacted in some formal documents (International Bureau of Education, 2013).

6

The implemented curriculum refers to what is actually carried out in classroom practices under the local schools or teachers` interpretation of what is required by formal documents—the intended curriculum (International Bureau of Education, 2013).

7

The experienced curriculum refers to what is actually experienced by learners (International Bureau of Education, 2013).

8

The hidden curriculum refers to influences coming from other parts like parents, their impact on the conduction of the intended and implemented curriculum (International Bureau of Education, 2013).