Curriculum Models in relation to Art Education by Vicki https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj Relating and contrasting models with reference to Art and Design. en-us 2016-11-13 12:38:07 UTC 2023-02-03 08:24:27 UTC hello@padlet.com A Model Lesson- Pasi Sahlberg vic_91 https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137186095 Within ‘Neoliberalism, curriculum development and manifestations of ‘creativity’, the Finnish cultural and political context is depicted as differing from the UK with the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture developing conditions for education that explicitly focus on ‘creativity, social participation and well-being’ (Adams and Owens, 2016). I believe that a similar model would benefit curriculum development within Art and Design as the autonomy and freedom that institutions and teachers are given, with reference to developing and delivering their own curricula, would allow for the facilitation of greater creativity, proactivity and innovation.
   The emergence of a neoliberal education policy ideology in the two creativity-related strategies implemented by the Finnish government, evidences the prevailing trend of creativity within the Finnish basic education renovation programme from 2010 to 2014 (Hakala, 2015). Research was composed for ‘Neoliberalism, curriculum development and manifestations of ‘creativity’ by expert teachers, artists and university-level educated engineers. The results from the study revealed the demanding influence of the concept of creativity on curriculum planning. Perspectives on the significance or importance of creativity and creative education vary a lot and, for instance, are influenced by the respondent’s professional background. Therefore, teacher professionalism, quality control at entry and standardised teacher preparation are all clear factors that contribute to the successful model lesson. For me, this importance of the role of the teacher and their subject specialist background corresponds with Richard Hickman's writings (see 'My Role' on curriculum poster).

‘The individual art teacher remains the essential driving force for imaginative, creative and challenging art education. Classroom teachers are not simply vehicles for delivery in state-sponsored curricula; they each have their individual strengths, will all subscribe to a theory (or more often a mélange of theories) of art and will operate within particular world views. Little research has been done on the influence of teachers’ personalities, attitudes and values on the kind of artwork produced in colleges, but based on anecdotal evidence I would suggest that the single most important factor in determining the nature of colleges’ art activities is the personal belief system of the individual art teachers.’
(Hickman, 2004:4)
]]> 2016-11-13 12:42:00 UTC https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137186095 Curriculum as Praxis vic_91 https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137186109 ‘We could expect practitioners committed to praxis to be exploring their practice with their peers. They would be able to say how their actions with respect to particular interventions reflected their ideas about what makes for the good, and to say what theories were involved.’
(Mednick, 2006)

Developed out of the process model*, this model has the relationship between theory and practice as its chief concern. Although critics argue that the model risks representing to learners a partial and overly critical standpoint on the world, within Art and Design raising critical consciousness in relation to their own work and that of others is crucial to learner development. In contrast to curriculum as transmission, this model often challenges taken-for-granted knowledge as the voice of the powerful and the source of oppression. According to this model, a curriculum is only worthwhile in as much as it has direct relevance to the experiences of learners. This idea lends itself effortlessly to the Art curriculum where we support learners own strengths, ideas and area of enquiry to support their personal investigation (both practically and conceptually). 
(Curtis and Pettigrew, 2010)

'Art Education Curriculum Praxis: A Time for Collaboration' Neil C. M. Brown 

*Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) who produced an extensive exploration of a process model of curriculum theory and practice, defined curriculum as an ‘attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice’. From this we can understand that this model focuses on the teacher and student activities and the conditions in which the learning takes place. In relation to my curriculum, I can see parallels in terms of creating a more individualised atmosphere and students having a part in deciding the nature of learning activities. However, I do feel that there is too much emphasis placed on the 'process', the means rather than the ends which is also an important part of Art and Design. ]]> 2016-11-13 12:42:19 UTC https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137186109 Progressive Developmental Pedagogy vic_91 https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137186447 Although I don't feel that this model relates to my entire Art and Design curriculum, the final stage of the Art Foundation course emphasises the importance of the increasing autonomy of students and self-directed learning. Students begin this stage by outlining their own aims and objectives, negotiating with teachers in order to take control of their own learning. Weekly tasks and work produced is negotiated through individual tutorials. Likewise, assessment takes place formatively through tutorials and the coursework based unit is open-ended. At the start of this stage, learners will be required to produce a statement of intent which will define the anticipated direction and breadth of their activities for their personal confirmatory study. To contextualise their chosen programme of activity the statement will also record the evolution of their professional interests and aspirations during stages 1 and 2. Once learners’ Statements of Intent have been agreed internally, they will be responsible for organising and directing their own programme of activity. Learning support will only be provided through tutorials and seminars. 
For this unit a statement of intent must be produced. It must be a minimum of 500 words but it is suggested that it should not exceed 700 words. 
Other evidence is not prescribed. It could contain 
  • Workbooks 
  • A reflective diary 
  • Journals 
  • Research work, related material and processes 
  • Visual development work, related material and processes 
  • Completed art, design, media, images and artefacts 
  • Records of tutorials/seminars 
  • Witness statements by staff 
  • Self evaluation 
This is not an exhaustive list and learners should be encouraged to develop the most appropriate evidence to demonstrate their achievement of the learning outcomes and assessment criteria. 
]]> 2016-11-13 12:46:30 UTC https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137186447 vic_91 https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137187520 Appendix 2]]> 2016-11-13 13:08:02 UTC https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137187520 RELATING MODELS vic_91 https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137188707 2016-11-13 13:27:59 UTC https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137188707 CONTRASTING MODELS vic_91 https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137189428 2016-11-13 13:41:49 UTC https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137189428 Curriculum as Transmission vic_91 https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137189515 A traditional model, the curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted suggests the delivery of knowledge is passed from teacher to student. Personally I feel that this notion of teacher as possessor of knowledge and student as receiver of knowledge contrasts with the planning of my curriculum. I feel that I couldn’t apply this model to my curriculum planning and development, as it doesn’t allow for innovation and creativity within my subject. 
 
‘Art education has to be concerned with learning about art as well as making art, but some would also argue that learning through art draws upon students’ abilities to produce art as their critical engagement with art objects’ (Hickman, 2004:7). 

Product Model

Influenced by theorists such as Tyler (1949), the emphasis of this model is on the product of the curriculum. Also known as behavioural objectives model, I feel that this does not lend itself well to the Art curriculum, as it doesn’t allow for learners to reach higher levels of learning including ‘creativity’ (Bloom, 1956). Instead I believe that this model discourages creativity by inspiring a curriculum that is too subject and exam bound. For me, Art education must encompass a process of critical engagement and dialogue, with both their peers and myself. This critical dialogue is just as important as the outcome  (Curtis and Pettigrew, 2010).
]]> 2016-11-13 13:44:02 UTC https://padlet.com/vic_91/bf20tnol8rjj/wish/137189515