Teaching Philosophy

            What students acquire from art education is much more profound than simply creating works of art. It is about creating and developing the child as a whole; that is my goal as an art educator. Not only are these art students constructing their own work, they are developing several skills that are essential to their futures. For example, things like visual- spatial abilities, reflection, self-criticism, and the willingness to experiment and learn from their mistakes are aspects that these children don’t acquire from elsewhere in their curriculum. With that being said, in my opinion, the child is what is truly important. Implementing a child-centered learning environment in an art education classroom is something that I feel strongly about, and is something that will be integrated into my future classroom. (Studio Thinking 2, Print.)

          Applying child-centered learning in the art classroom allows for students to express themselves in numerous ways, ways that they might not get the chance to experience in their other classrooms. Allowing the students to be hands on and learn for themselves is what I will include in my classroom. Child-centered learning enables the students themselves, to take control of their own education and inspire them to become dynamically involved in their own learning. Simply creating a work of art that is established by the students own personal lifestyle and based on their own choices, is the importance of having a child-centered art classroom. Not what others have laid upon them. Allowing students to think critically, independently or while working with other students, generates important skills and teaches them imperative aspects of art.

          Therefore, I have examined information from one of the primary figures in child-centered learning, Peter London. Peter London believes that art should be original and each product as one of a kind. His idea of “second hand” art is that the creative self, inside each individual has been covered up by recycled ideas, unoriginal beliefs, and accustomed behavior. Peter believes in the concept of a Lassie-faire classroom, allowing the students the freedom to create what they desire, with little to no instruction from their teacher. In my opinion, Peter London’s child-centered approach is an excellent method in the process of structuring your art classroom; but I feel many students need structure and instruction, leading them in the right direction, or they may become confused before they have even begun. Allowing the students to think freely, work with their hands, and apply their own ideas to their art work is why I feel this approach is critical in the art classroom. With that being said, I strongly believe that in my classroom I will incorporate some form of direction; whether that may be by artist examples, demonstration, or merely giving the students guided assessments. I will expect my students to be hands on and creative in their own personal ways. (No More Secondhand Art, Print.)

          So if we take a look at the opposing side to child-centered learning, we have subject-centered learning. We can distinguish that subject-centered learning is motioned towards the subject matter, rather than the child themselves. One of the leading figures for the subject-centered learning approach is Elliot Eisner. Elliot Eisner influenced a new structure for art curriculums; he believed that educators should follow a system based on four major operations, those processes being art production, art criticism, art history, and aesthetics. He felt that this system made sense for the reason that, “they make works of art, they appreciate art, they learn to understand art in relation to cultures, and they make judgements about the arts.” So in his opinion these four disciplines in art ought to be replicated in the curriculum.(On Discipline-Based Art Education, Journal article.)

          I do agree, to an extent, with Elliot Eisner’s subject-centered learning approach.  I feel in order to construct the child as a whole, they need to not only have the opportunity to create visual works of art, but they need to be capable of understanding the art in detail. Students should be able to talk about and present their works of art, as well. I want my students to have an appreciation for art and acquire a way to relate their art to their everyday lives. With that being said, I feel it is important to incorporate subject-centered learning into the classroom. I agree with aspects of Elliot Eisner’s studies and that students need some direction in the creation and understanding of art. But I feel that it is important to allow the child themselves, to be creative and think independently. I want the students in my classroom to take the directions given and build upon them with innovative and original ideas.

          After examining both Peter London and Elliot Eisner, I feel it is safe to say that I approve of both, child-centered and subject-centered learning. I may personally favor one over the other, because I believe that the child as a whole is what is important and needs to be developed thoroughly. Although in my opinion I do consider both, child-centered and subject-centered to be imperative in the development of the child entirely. Not only is it important to incorporate creating, presenting, responding, and connecting into your classroom, it is required based on the National Visual Art Standards. Following these standards, while keeping in mind that the child is what is important and giving them the opportunity to think critically and create original ideas, is what I assure will be my goal in my own classroom, as a future art educator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Brandt, Ron. “On Discipline- Based Art Education: A Conversation with Elliot Eisner,” 1987. Journal article. 5, October 2015

 

Hetland, Lois, Ellen Winner, Shirley Veenema, and Kimberly Sheridan. 2013. Studio Thinking 2. Second. Teachers College Press.

 

London, Peter. No More Secondhand Art: Awakening the Artist within. Boston: Shambhala, 1989. Print.