My Interdisciplinary Connections:
I am a conceptually trained visual arts teacher. In my undergraduate degree I specialised in sculpture (object based and installation). Since then I have been painting and drawing within my own art practice. I work as a visual arts teacher years 7 – 13 and have in the past taught year 9 Maori and English, relieved in Graphics and textiles and every year offer a Level 1 kapa haka dance standard to interested students. Through my teaching I have developed a passion for Te Reo and tikanga Maori, and have sought to integrate this learning into my visual art teaching.
(Freeman & Mathison, 1997)
Intradisciplinary or integrated: I have developed a year 9 Toi Ataata (Maori visual arts unit) based on the design and make of a miniature kakahu that utilises an interdisciplinary approach by combining art skills and content from painting, printmaking, design, sculpture and technology with a kaupapa Maori approach. This unit of work has been successful to implement as it gives students a broad overview of the different visual arts fields within a Maori context in one short topic. The unit is very much teacher led as timing (27 lessons) limits student inquiry. However the unit does enhance connections within the visual arts, technology and social studies disciplines and it does provide success for all students. I am now wondering where this sits on the continuum of interdisciplinary teaching and learning. I think it is in between interdisciplinary and integrated. As integrated ‘is to unify parts so that the result is more than the sum of these parts.’ (Gibbins, 1979, p321 as sited in Freeman & Mathison, 1997). However this unit has limited student inquiry.
Cross – disciplinary correlated: Within the arts subjects at year 10 our students rotate around four disciplines (Visual Arts, Digital Arts, Drama and Music) during each rotation they study art works, develop ideas, learn subject related skills and produce their own work all under a common theme. At the end of the year a student led curatorial team develop a pop up exhibition to showcase their learning in the arts. This way of learning fits the cross disciplinary or correlated in that there is an overriding theme that students develop ideas from and the emphasis is on skill building to inform their learning if they wish to continue learning in the arts. There is much resistance to this type of integration by NZ art teachers as there is a fear that a course like this cuts down on each art subjects teaching time. (See my post 'Goodbye School Year 2016, 14.12.2016).
Interdisciplinary to Integrative: Robotic Art/STEAM unit with year 8’s
During the Mindlab course I became interested in the application of robotics in art. I thought this would be a good way to introduce year 8 students to coding and robotics as part of their art rotation within our technology studio blocks. I was aiming for an integrative approach to the 4 day course in that after initially being introduced to robotic art students would design a course of action for the next three days. Perhaps I was a bit naive and ambitious as it did not work out the way I had hoped.
The first day was awesome, students worked in groups to complete challenges that introduced them to the concept of robotic art, to blockly for picaxe and to the elements and principles of art. This day was highly teacher directed and utilsed 21st Century skills of problem solving, collaboration and communication as the students worked together to complete challenges and create blog posts along the way. Every student left with a smile on their face. This day had equal elements of art knowledge and programming knowledge so was ‘interdisciplinary’.
I then wanted to move to a more integrative approach where the students’ co construct the success criteria for the next 3 studio days. This was not as successful as I had hoped as both the students and I were not used to having a predetermined outcome for the learning. Students wanted to use clay, to paint and to do mixed media. We ended up using the robotic art drawings as a starting point and moved to abstract painting, modelling 3d forms in corrugated card, mold making with clay to create plaster forms, to surrealist painting and photography and a final surrealist mixed media art work. It became very art heavy (that is what the students wanted) and less technology (coding). I think that what this unit was lacking was an ‘overriding global perspective’ or purpose. If this was present perhaps both the students and I would be better able to manage the inquiry aspect of an integrative approach.
(Mulligan & Kuban, 2015)
So where to now?
By using the above model I have come to the conclusion that at this time the most difficult barrier is ‘workplace conditions’ and the easiest way for me to operate with aspects of an integrated curriculum are to work within my sphere of influence. This is my art classroom and with other arts teachers (music drama and visual/digital art). I may dip into consultation with science, maths and technology teachers where there are common goals and qualities and attitudes that are beneficial but I am inclined to keep it simple at this stage.
I think my next steps will be to take my learning from this and from past successes in intradisciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches to fine tune the robotic art studio course for 2018. Could it have a kaupapa Maori concept and could it utilise data to increase the coding components of the course? Thus ‘connecting the abstract world of disciplinary knowledge and the real world of experience’ ((Freeman & Mathison, 1997).
References
Tena rawa atu ki a koe mō ō whakaaro rangatira, mō āu mahi kaiako ki ō tātou tamariki, mokopuna. He rawe tō kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa. Kia kaha rā
ReplyDeleteHi Sara
ReplyDeleteI totally understand your frustration with putting theory into practice. As a technology teacher it is becoming clearer everyday how our teaching of subjects in silos is not the best way to show our students the bigger picture of the world they are preparing for. With the new draft digital technologies plan this will become so much more relevant in the next few years. If we wait too long we won't be prepared for the learning our students need. I think Mindlab has really shown us that being early adopters who are well informed can have a positive impact on preparing for changing rather than waiting for the changes to be demanded of us. The growth mindset establishes an openness to change which allows those transitions to be smoother. I have found that with your peers on board you can move quickly through change together rather than being the last one who is left behind. Taking the risk to make the change in your teaching has made you a reflective practitioner which can only help improves your practice. It sounds like although the plan didn't go as you expected you were able to con-construct the learning with your students and still have positive learning outcomes.