ERIC EJ869348: Learning from Objects: A Future for 21st Century Urban Arts Education

2009·0.16 MB·English

by  ERIC

PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION FALL 2009 | PAGE 72
COMMENTARY
Learning from Objects: A Future for 21st Century Urban Arts Education
By Dorothea Lasky, University of Pennsylvania
THE STATE OF US URBAN ARTS dent experiences in museums are so Dewey (1934) discusses the connec-
important for learning. Some of the tion between the body’s actions and the
EDUCATION IN 2009
benefits of such partnerships can be mind, as he suggests that arts learning
Among the 510 promises Obama
found in uncovering the key learning is closely connected to bodily experi-
(2008) made the American public in
qualities of object-based learning ex- ence. Varela (1999), a more recent phi-
his presidential campaign was a prom-
periences, easily afforded to learners losopher, writes of how humans begin
ise to use his position to endorse the
in museums. In our technological age, to know and learn through the expe-
arts in our public educational system
where mind and body are increasingly rience of their bodies, just as animals
(St. Petersburg Times, 2008). Included
disconnected in the classroom, object- do. In 2009, as we consider what fu-
in this endorsement was his promise to based learning––along with strong ture arts education has in 21st century
fund an Artist’s Corps program, which
museum-school partnerships––pro- learning, we should begin to look more
would bring and train young artists
vide many benefits for student learning. closely at what arts education can do to
to low-income schools and their sur-
In the following brief discussion, reengage a mind-body connection in
rounding communities. If this promise
I will first outline some of the special education. Recognizing the relation-
is fulfilled, it is surely a welcome change
mind-body connections that object- ship of arts education to objects is an ef-
of priorities to many of our country’s
based learning in museums affords ficient way to reengage this connection.
arts educators. In the previous admin-
learners and how this learning is spe- Before they became public institu-
istration, many arts educators faced
cific to the kind of object-based learn- tions, museums started first as private
the seemingly arts-friendly rhetoric of
ing one finds in museums. Next, I will and personalized collections, or cabi-
the No Child Left Behind Act, but were
discuss how integral museum-school nets of curiosities and wonder. The
left with little real support for enhanc-
partnerships are to making a space for first museums started as haphazard
ing, let alone maintaining, their school
arts education in general school cur- collections of fascinating things, of-
arts programs. In a time of decreased
riculum. Lastly, I will make a case for ten existing in glass cases in people’s
funding for the arts, many arts educa-
increased funding for museum-school homes as jumbles of natural history
tors have been forced to defend a cau-
partnerships and object-based learn- objects, manuscripts, artifacts, and
sation (rather than a simple correla-
ing school initiatives, as I think they ephemera. As Weil (1995) explains, a
tion) for the arts and many attractive
should begin to be rightly seen as part contemporary museum’s collection of
deliverables (like increased test and
of the future for arts education in the objects is just as haphazard and may be
SAT scores) in order to maintain their 21st century. In reviewing all of these representative more of “local wonders”
place in the public school curriculum
ideas, I hope to reinvigorate the argu- (p. 15) than any sort of universal ones.
(Winner and Hetland, 2007). As Part-
ment that, in the current technologi- In turn, the information housed in mu-
nership 21st Century Skills suggests, the cal learning revolution of the early 21st seum collections may be just as fleeting
opposite should be the case, as skills
century, we do not forget the great ben- as any idea is within a learner’s mind.
readily learned within the arts, like
efits of learning from physical objects. A museum collection can teach visiting
creativity, innovation, and social col-
students that objects are representative
laboration, are marked as important
Body and Mind, Making, and Museum of the transitory nature of ideas (Weil,
skills to foster in learners today (Part-
1995). The similar impermanent na-
nership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Learning
ture of both ideas and objects connect
Arts Education Partnership (2000) Educators often ask themselves a in the state of wonder that both incur
suggests that there are key ways that fundamental question: How can I best in the learner. Just as a wonderful idea
schools can utilize their local cultural utilize the precious potential of my stu- connects the learner to his specific time
partners to enhance their school arts dents’ minds? As we begin to frame and place, a wonderful object does as
education programs. Local cultural how the arts can be reengaged in our well. This similarity of their wonder
partners that schools traditionally educational system today, it is perti- is the stuff of meaningful learning.
partner with for their arts education nent again to see how we might best How, then, does the state of wonder
needs are museums. Although many connect learners’ bodies with their present in the best museum collections
arts educators realize the benefit of minds. We must explore again the tie help people learn? What about the
such partnerships instinctively, it is between experience and thinking. In physical make-up of museums engages
important to consider why these stu- his seminal work, Art as Experience, learners more than a set of facts alone?
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION FALL 2009 | PAGE 73
Why is a museum, as a particular kind finite reality. As we move forward into Weil (1995) point out that some educa-
of learning environment, so special? a digital learning age where objects tors might see that this could be a kind
As Hein (1998) describes, “museums are becoming less and less important of limitation for learning. However,
are extraordinary places where visi- to educational contexts, it is pertinent some might see the physical finiteness
tors have an incredible range of experi- that we reengage our students’ mind- as a helpful constraint, as it keeps ideas
ences” (p. 2). Often the act of museum body connections with the experience manageable in their determinate forms.
going is social in nature, whether social of real art objects. How this can be In addition, how museums choose
in a family context or in the context done efficiently is through the ben- to curate their collections gives learn-
of a school group. Whatever the case, efits of museum-school partnerships ers a lot of information about the
museum going is both experiential and and the objects with which they ask world. For example, an art museum
social and, likewise, educative in both students to come in contact directly. may choose to organize its objects as
the Deweyian and the Vygotskian sense part of a group of aesthetic movements
of the word1. Museums provide spe- Object-based Learning: Looking at its or it may choose to organize its ob-
cial environments for learning, as they jects in groupings of time periods and
Benefits
have the ability to create and recreate cultures. Or it may act as the Dewey-
experiences for learning in a bodily Learning from objects in museums constructed Barnes Foundation and or-
and social way that simple conceptual helps learners access their imagina- ganize its objects entirely by aesthetic
learning cannot. Human learning is tions to engage with a set of concepts, principles and provide surprising jux-
an enormously complex endeavor, so it the history of a people, the history of tapositions.2 Nevertheless, all mu-
would make sense that an ideal learn- an aesthetic movement, or the cultural seums present a physical curriculum
ing environment should be equally as norms of a society. Still, what is it in that is intrinsically geared towards in-
complex. Learning environments, like a set of objects that aids learning so dividualistic learning and experience.
museums, which take into account the much? Researchers like Frost (2001) As Weil (1995) explains, we repre-
sensory needs of their learners (their think it is an object’s connection to the sent our world of experiences through
sight, their feeling, and sometimes culture that made it that gives learn- the objects in our museums and help to
audial responses and reactions), have ers an opportunity to interact with a create an alternative world of objects
the greatest possibility of engaging the culture (and its ideas) on a bodily lev- for learners—one that projects directly
learner in a fully bodily way. Museums el. Smith (1989) writes that it is the into learners’ imaginations and allows
afford a special kind of learning; they constantly changing status of artifacts them to learn deeply. When a learner
do more than teach learners a simple through history that allows students experiences an object in its material
set of facts, they show them cultural to better understand how the status of form, something engages within him
worlds that have been lost into the in- ideas change throughout history. When that is deeper than learning from the
satiable vortex of time (Hein, 1998). student learners engage with objects text or visuals of his classroom alone
Reengaging a mind-body connec- during museum-school partnerships, (Dewey, 1963). Intrinsic to this is his
tion for learning can be best achieved they access the rich cultural signifi- ability to experience the ideas he learn-
in learning from objects. Many con- cance of these changing relationships. ing about in the world in its material
temporary learning theorists have And, as they begin to see the changing form. Objects house the human drama
suggested as such, and not only in the meaning of objects in relation to their and help reflect the human condition
context of discussion about art. In re- changing selves, they begin to get a back to learners. This human relation-
cent literature, a group of researchers larger, critical perspective of the mer- ship to objects (and direct access to
have been doing work that seems to curial nature of the world around them them through museum-school partner-
reconnect body and mind through the and their relational place within it. ships) can help to dissolve the cultural
act of making new physical objects in Objects provide an important cur- barriers that sometimes mire them in
the classroom. Barry and Kanemat- ricular set up for learners to access unjust power relationships. As Dell
su (2008) suggest ways that teach- information. No matter the kind of (1987) argues, there is an egalitarian
ers can create learning environments museum in which they are housed nature to cultural art objects them-
that support original thinking through (constructivist, traditional, or oth- selves, as a museum full of them pro-
multi-sensory and interdisciplinary ap- erwise), the nature of objects makes vides a physical example of cultural
proaches. Burke-Adams (2007) writes them, for all practical purposes, physi- products that is paradoxically both
that learning to think of new ideas is cal repositories geared toward indi- tied up and free of cultural relevan-
not an “intangible component” (p. 58) vidualistic learning. When museums cies through their physical presences.
of the classroom but a process that re- present the information they seek to Although the objects themselves are
quires teachers to use tools to foster it. convey, the objects within them gov- bound up with cultural significance, al-
Jacucci and Wagner (2007) describe ern how the information is presented lowing students access to them creates
an ideal classroom in which materials and organized. There is a finiteness agency and, in this way, helps to pro-
(e.g., art objects) expand collaborative to a set of objects, and this engages a mote a more democratic distribution
communication and promote new ideas learner’s mind through his physical ex- of information. Duncan (1995) argues
by the very act of pinning them down to periences (Dewey, 1934). Scholars like that museums themselves mediate the
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION FALL 2009 | PAGE 74
public’s views of the art objects they Museums have a long history of museum. Whatever the methods used,
hold. In this way, the objects of a mu- working with schools to enrich schools’ in contemporary museum-school part-
seum provide students with a constant- arts programming with their own col- nerships, contemporary art educators
ly changing set of information about lections and resources (Hall & Bannon, should see the use of objects as cultural
themselves, hopelessly relevant to the 2006). Contemporary museum-school and educative tools as noteworthy. In-
context of their home institutions, their partnerships seem to take a varied herent in these programs is the idea that
histories, their makers, museum visi- many ways of implementing program- people learn from objects in a deep way
tors, and the objects surrounding them. ming (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007), all and, as arts educators, we should con-
As learners can begin to engage with of which are quite dependent on the tinue to support programs like them.
the universality of object collection and types of museums, the age groups of The benefits of learning in muse-
learn based on the human lessons these the children involved, and other prac- ums are worthy enough to break down
objects hold, they can learn in a more tical considerations, such as locale cultural barriers for partnerships with
just system and engage with timeless and accessibility of students to the schools (Berry, 1998), especially since
ideas of the human and natural world. museum. What is evident above and the very act of a partnership helps to
beyond these specific considerations soften the boundaries between two
TAKING STUDENTS TO WHERE THE is that younger students are often the institutions that prevent the sharing
learners in museum-school partner- of information. Museums themselves
OBJECTS ARE: THE BENEFITS OF
ships (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007). Fu- help to break down learning barriers
MUSEUM-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS ture researchers might seek to uncover between the real and imagined worlds
The kind of learning that occurs in both why this is the case and how in and can act as important catalysts
museums is distinct, as museums are fact these younger students are learn- for learning in this way. As Lorimer
both repositories of culture and them- ing. For example, a good question (2003) writes, as a museum exhibit
selves learning environments that allow might be: How might young learners, full of objects “allows co-presence of
students to engage with the objects that within the halls of humanity’s wonder- subjects with models and swatches
have traveled through time as physi- ful things (museums), experience this of an integrated world” (p. 34), sub-
cal entities or things. In considering sense of awe and how is it important jects (learners) are better able to en-
the partnership works of the arts and in sparking their lifelong learning? ter the space of their own imagina-
education, no more so is this partner- Nightingale’s (2006) work at the tions. This important imaginative
ship more evident and important than Victoria and Albert Museum has shown space gives them both agency within
in the halls of a museum. As Pearce that by creating educational “pro- the world through access to their own
(1921) explains, “supplement[ing] his- grammes linked to culturally specific minds and helps them to have more
torical records with relics illustrating collections,” she has allowed her mu- meaningful learning experiences.
the matters with which they deal, such seum to reach “specific communities” For example, if a third grader is
as weapons, costumes, personal be- (p. 82) that might otherwise feel shut studying the country of France in her
longings of famous personages” (p. 11) out of museums, due to the unseen social studies class, going to the local
is a way to connect with the people who (but felt) cultural boundaries present museum and viewing (and in some
lived through the history. Museums, in elite art institutions. This and other cases, perhaps actually touching) in
whose role has arguably always been to similar shifts in relational educational person the artifacts of such a culture
act as repositories of culture (and be- programming at numerous museums helps to make alive in her imagina-
ing both susceptible to and representa- around the world have profound impli- tion the world of France in a way text
tive of all the underlying power issues cations for museum learning. Message or 2-D visuals might not on their own.
present in a culture), can be exciting (2006) argues that the best museums A museum experience helps to ignite a
places for students to learn more about today make transparent their curato- child’s imagination and, subsequently,
the ideas they encounter in schools. rial decisions in hallmark postmodern her learning. As Greene (1995) dis-
As Csikzentmihalyi and Hermanson fashion. Other museum-school part- cusses, when the “imagination enters”
(1995) write, many of our great adults nerships simply ask students to engage into a learning experience, it becomes
had their future career paths sparked by with interesting objects. Museum- the “felt possibility of looking beyond
a museum visit as children. And since school partnerships like The Museum the boundary where the backyard ends
many urban schools have had their arts Learning Initiative at Albany Institute or the road narrows, diminishing out
funding cut drastically in recent years of History and Art, Fitchburg Arts of sight” (p. 26). When children learn
(due to both the NCLB assessment Academy’s learning partnership with from objects, they begin to see the “in-
movement in education and govern- the Fitchburg Art Museum, and The tegrated world” (Lorimer, 2003, p. 34)
mental funding cuts for education in Smithsonian Early Enrichment Center in which they live more fully and freely.
general), museum-school partnerships have more traditional, but successful, This learning should be a “felt possi-
seem to be a way to help students ac- approaches to quality museum learn- bility” (Greene, 1995, p. 26) in order
cess the cultural knowledge that might ing programs in which student lessons to be a meaningful one. Children feel
be inaccessible to them otherwise. in a variety of subjects are taught di- their learning in a museum environ-
rectly in contact with objects from the ment as they experience the knowledge
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION FALL 2009 | PAGE 75
they are learning or, in some cases, as tionships between arts education (let graduation rates in our schools and the
they are actually touching it. As chil- alone object-based arts education or depth of learning occurring therein, it
dren learn in museum settings, they museum-school partnerships) and the is necessary that we begin to think of
begin to comprehend ideas in their possibility of higher graduation rates, learning from art objects as synony-
entirety. This comprehension is re- he does explain that a student’s com- mous with quality arts learning (and,
lated to their sensory experiences and munity largely affects the possibility of moreover, quality learning in general)
imaginations being activated (Sar- her graduation. When this community, and provide the platform for object-
tre, 1940) for great learning benefit. whether it be school or home, fails to based learning in our urban schools.
Most arts educators, and educa- engage students’ imaginations, some-
tors in other subjects, would argue thing goes wrong for student learning. Dorothea Lasky is a third year
that in developing students’ imagina- Despite these conclusions, when doctoral student in the Teaching,
tions in school you begin to develop “a funding gets cut from schools to make Learning, and Curriculum concentra-
more active sensibility and awareness” room for subjects that might positive- tion. Her dissertation research inter-
(Greene, 1995, p. 8) within learners. ly affect graduation rates, like math ests deals with uncovering ideal ways
It would follow, then, that learning and science, what usually goes first that teachers foster creativity in their
within experiential learning environ- is funding to the arts. As arts educa- classrooms. At GSE, she has done re-
ments like museums would instill ac- tors, we need to consider how to cre- search with the SPARK! program, the
tive sensibility in learners through ac- ate new communities of learning in ITEST Nano program, and the Execu-
tive learning with objects. Certainly, our urban schools that are alternative tive Program in Work-Based Learning
as learners engage with the objects in ways to engage our students’ imagina- Leadership. Before coming to GSE, she
museums, they somehow engage with tions. Museums provide a backdrop to did research at Project Zero (an edu-
the real thing (Gurian, 1999). What create these communities, as the ob- cational research group at Harvard’s
real means is another story. The ob- jects they house both contain the real GSE) and the Harvard Museum of
jects within museums are the real relics world and inspire new ones through Natural History. She has taught poetry
of the past, however culturally skewed an engagement of students’ imagina- and art to students of many ages in var-
a view these relics might hold. Objects tions. Museum-school partnerships ious formal and informal learning en-
in museums are forever caught up in could be a powerful 21st century learn- vironments. Her first book of poems,
the boundaries of their time and the ing tool in cultivating better learn- AWE, was published by Wave Books in
power dynamics therein. Still, as stu- ing experiences for our students and 2007 and her second book, Black Life,
dents learn from the real things, they helping to slow down, and potentially is due out from Wave Books in 2010.
arguably learn differently (and many stop, the high school graduation crisis.
might argue better) than from facts Greene (1995) argues that the arts
ENDNOTES
alone. And as long as there are pub- can bring unexplored possibilities to
licly accessible collections of objects, student learning, reengage student
learners might as well have every op- agency and imaginations, and thus, 1 To define these theorists’ relation-
portunity possible to learn from them. bring about social change through ships to the word educative: a
this reengagement. Perkins (1994) Deweyian definition of educative
THE ARGUMENT FOR AN OBJECT-BASED explains that the visual intelligence is learning that is experiential in
stimulated by engaging with art objects nature and a Vygotskyian defini-
ARTS EDUCATION THROUGH ENGAGED
during arts learning sessions strength- tion of educative is learning that is
MUSEUM-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS ens learners’ imaginations, which, social in nature.
in turn, strengthens critical thinking
IN URBAN SCHOOLS: CONCLUDING
skills. By engaging students with an 2 “Surprising juxtapositions,” of
REMARKS object-based arts curriculum, we can course, is only a fitting description
The urban high school graduation begin to reengage students with the to a public that is familiar with
crisis is finally getting more exposure important mind-body connections that other more normative methods
among policymakers and the media. may be left out of many digital learn- of museum education. Barnes’
In “Cities in Crisis: A Special Ana- ing initiatives. By giving funding and and Dewey’s choices in the Barnes
lytic Report on High School Gradua- support to increase museum-school Foundation can be seen as ironic
tion,” Swanson (2008) states that high partnerships, by encouraging teach- and elitist or democratic, depend-
school graduation rates are on aver- ers in all disciplines to use objects in ing on your view. Certainly, their
age 15 percentage points lower in our their classrooms, and by asking stu- choices can be seen as both simul-
nation’s urban centers. The National dents to create and co-construct with taneously.
Endowment for the Arts (2008) has their peers their own novel objects, we
indicated that arts programming can might begin to give our students “the
play a role in increasing high school comprehension of total reality” (Freire,
graduation rates. While Swanson 2006, p. 108) they so deserve. Looking
(2008) does not identify any rela- forward at how we might best improve
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION FALL 2009 | PAGE 76
REFERENCES
Arts Education Partnership (2000). Strengthening State-Level Arts Education Partnerships. Washington D.C., 1-7.
Berry, N. (1998), A Focus on Art Museum/Collaboration. Art Education, 51 (2), 8-14.
Csikzentmihalyi, M & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: what makes visitors want to learn? Mu-
seum News 74, 35-37 and 59-62.
Dell, R. (1987). The Object is the Message. Educational Perspectives, Journal of the College of Education, pp. 17-21. Uni-
versity of Hawaii at Manoa.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn Books.
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and Education. The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. New York: Collier Books. (First pub-
lished in 1938).
Duncan, C. (1995). The Modern Art Museum. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge, pp. 102-
134.
Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, the Arts, and Social Change. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Gurian, E. H. (1999). What is the Object of This Exercise? A Meandering Exploration of the Many Meanings of Objects in
Museums. America’s Museums, Daedulus, pp. 163-184. Cambridge: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the Museum. New York: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and Education: Purposes, Pedagogy, Performance. London and New York: Rout-
ledge.
Lorimer, A. (2003). “Reality World”: Constructing Reality Through Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry: Volume 1.
Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Message, K. (2006). New Museums and the Making of Culture. Oxford and New York: Berg.
National Endowment for the Arts (2008). http://www.nea.gov/Grants/apply/Artsed.html
Nightingale, E. (2006). “Dancing Around the Collections: Developing Individuals and Audiences” Chapter 6 in The
Responsive Museum: Working with Audiences in the 21st Century (Eds. Lang, C., Reeve, J., and Woollard, V.) Hamp-
shire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2007). The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the 21st Century Skills Framework.
Tucson, AZ 1-24.
Pearce, J.E. (1921). Museums—Their Use and Place in Learning and in the Transmission of Culture. Austin, TX: Univer-
sity of Texas Bulletin, No. 2133, June, 10, 1921.
Perkins, D. (1994). The Intelligent Eye: Learning to Think by Looking at Art. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Publications
Sartre, J. P. (1940, 2004). The Imaginary. New York: Routledge.
Smith, C. S. (1989). “Museums, Artefacts, and Meanings” Chapter 1 in The New Museology (Vergo, P., Ed.) London: Reak-
tion Books.
St. Petersburg Times (2008). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/
Swanson, C. (2008). Cities in Crisis: A Special Analytic Report on High School Graduation. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Proj-
ect in Education Research Center.
Winner, E. and Hetland, L. (2007) “Art for our sake School arts classes matter more than ever––but not for the reasons
you think”http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/02/art_for_our_sake/