Learning to Draw || Constructivism and Technology in Art Education

National Art Education Association

Constructivism and Technology in Art EducationAuthor(s): Michael PraterSource: Art Education, Vol. 54, No. 6, Learning to Draw (Nov., 2001), pp. 43-48Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193914 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:03:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193914?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Construtivism .?

" \ :: *

and I . ,

. fa I

:/

r .- i

"1

v".\

I-

I / 1

*1

in

Y,':,' : ;,.".. : .

.

. '

.

C ,P . A ,

BY MICHAEL PRATE:R

Edc Art

Education

echnologies such as the Internet and interactive CD-ROMs are relatively new to the art classroom and often leave art teachers puzzled as to how to use them effectively. Using hyperlinks (mouse-click connections between separate files of information), learners form connections and relationships between art concepts based on their interests and questions. Over time learners can begin to construct their own understanding of art and art ideas. Answers to questions previously presented as unquestionable fact, such as "What is color?" and "Who were the German Expressionists?" suddenly become open to multiple inter- pretations based on each learner's unique perspective on the question.

NOVEMBER 2001 / ART EDUCATION

L5\1



When two people experience an event, they both experience the event in different ways. Their perception of the experience is largely shaped and affected by their social, cultural, and physical environment and the symbol systems that have been learned prior to the event. By interacting with others in relation to that event, learners incorporate different perspectives into their understanding of what they experienced.

Traditional methods of teaching art have not fit easily with the individualistic, connections-driven learning that interactive hypermedia technologies support. But a newer approach called Constructivism does. When an art teacher uses constructivist methods, art students can use resources such as the Internet and CD-ROMs more effectively. This article examines the relationship between constructivist instruction and the use of interactive technology in the art classroom.

The Constructivist Perspective Constructivist methods are very different from more

traditional Aristotelian approaches to curricula and teaching. From the traditional point of view, a discipline of knowledge is composed of facts that are "true" and considered constants, existing in a hierarchy that repre- sents the structure of the discipline. Curriculum involves creating a sequence of objectives that expose students to the "facts" of a discipline in a manner that reflects their hierarchy (Greene, 1995).

In opposition, Constructivism refutes the idea of constants and their hierarchy within a discipline as the focus of instruction. Instead, individuals must construct meaning based on their experiences (Brooks & Brooks, 1995). New experiences are related to past experiences,

resulting in a process in which knowledge and beliefs are constantly modified and seen as interconnected. In this way, an individual's understanding of content is more holistic and personally meaningful.

Three key features (Brooks & Brooks, 1995; Greene, 1995) of the constructivist approach are: * The hierarchy of content is less important than the

connections between concepts that the learner discovers.

* A constructivist plan of study reflects the inquiry process of the learner. Content is introduced as it is encountered or requested by the learner.

* With the instructor's guidance, learners determine their own objectives and tasks. Theories of two famous cognitive psychologists, Piaget

and Vygotsky, are at the foundation of Constructivism. Specifically, Constructivism relies on Piaget's theories about knowledge schemata and experience and Vygotsky's theories about how our social context directly affects our perception of our experiences.

According to Piaget (1970, 1977), learners acquire knowledge by grouping similar experiences into structures (called schema) that eventually acquire a name or category. The more experiences we add to a structure, the more in-depth an understanding we construct for that concept. The created structures interconnect and form larger concepts. Each time an experience is had that directly contradicts an existing knowledge structure, the learner enters into the state Piaget called disequilibrium. A learner resolves this form of mental stress by ignoring the experience, beginning a new schema, or revising the existing one.

Vygotsky (1986) adds to the process of constructing meaning by suggesting perception is by no means a constant. When two people experience an event, they both experience the event in different ways. Their perception of the experience is largely shaped and affected by their social, cultural, and physical environment and the symbol systems that have been learned prior to the event. By interacting with others in relation to that event, learners incorporate different perspectives into their understanding of what they experienced. In this manner, our meaning constructs are slowly revised as we interact with and incorporate the experiences of others into our learning (Nicaise & Barnes, 1996; Yager, 1991).

Therefore, from the Constructivist perspective, learning is the construction of meaning by gathering personal experiences. No fact or single interpretation is so important

ART EDUCATION / NOVEMBER 2001



as to bring a halt to the learning process, or to overrule the learner's personal interpretation. Instead, as part of the process, we continually add to or revise our understanding based on subsequent experiences, moving toward meaning constructs that more accurately match our future experiences.

A Constructivist learning environment must support this experience-gathering process by facilitating the needs and interests of the individual in relation to the topic of study. A teacher's primary function is to guide and facilitate the inquiries of the learner.

Types of Constructivist Teaching Methods In a Constructivist curriculum, the instructor stops

being the authority on concepts (Perkins, 1992; Yager, 1991). Instead, the instructor becomes a facilitator of exploration and a provider of experiences that help students form meaning for the concepts and ideas they choose to pursue. Perkins (1992) describes two approaches to facilitating this exploration. The first approach, which he calls "Beyond Information Given," requires students to seek out connections between a given set of topical ideas provided by the instructor. The second, which he calls 'Without Information Given," requires students to pursue a final objective or perfor- mance relating to a topic established by the instructor.

Students must discover ideas within the related topic on their own and link them together to form an understanding of the topic that they will use to complete the task.

In the "Beyond Information Given" approach, the topic to be studied is "framed" by the instructor by providing students with a minimum amount of introductory information or a beginning experience about a concept. They engage in open-problem application tasks the instructor has designed to reflect multiple perspectives on the topic. As students pursue their own approaches to the task, the instructor helps them see connections between their experiences and the introductory information, guiding them toward more options or perspectives they may not have considered.

As an example of a "framed" lesson, a teacher presents Pablo Picasso's painting Guernica to a class of students. She discusses the media, the date, a few facts about Picasso's life, and a few facts about the subject matter and the events of the time. Then, students are divided into teams and asked to decide why Guernica is an important artwork and present their case to the rest of the class. The teacher directs students toward resources and specific tasks that reflect their expressed interests or discoveries about the painting, helping them find connections between their ideas and discoveries.

The 'Without Information Given" approach can be considered "open" in that students are given only the application task and resources; the path they choose to complete the task is left open by the instructor. Some framing can occur by how the instructor selects initially provided resources to reflect key concepts at the focus of the lesson. But, again, how students interpret those resources is left open. Based on the results of their initial inquiries, students determine the experiences or additional resources they need to complete the task. The instructor provides advice, serves as a sounding board, and recommends pursuits related to the students' approach to the task.

As an example of an "open" constructivist art unit, a teacher announces to the students that they will be study- ing narrative art. The teacher gives students the task of making three artworks that can tell a story, but provides them with no initial direction about how to do that. Trips to the library are made for research. Students are given lists of videotapes they may view about artists and lists of studio skills the teacher will demonstrate are provided. Students are encouraged to collaborate on similar inquiries and on their artworks. Finally, each student or

NOVEMBER 2001 / ART EDUCATION -

i



group of students presents their finished work, explaining how each artwork tells a story and from where their ideas came. As a final summary, all students are asked to discuss their findings or conclusions about narrative art.

Looking at the future of visual arts instruction, Hicks (1993) indicated that new curricula must "emphasize thinking skills, new associations, new realities, problem solving, and the creation of problems to be solved" (p. 46). The above methods, "framed" and "open," embody the ideal that Hicks describes.

Constructivism, Art Education, and Interactive Technologies

How can the combination of constructivist methods with interactive hypermedia resources relate to visual arts education and instruction? An examination of the discipline-based art education (DBAE) content categories provides a frame of reference for answering the question.

In art criticism, the critical analysis of an artwork is necessarily a process of constructing meaning. Keifer- Boyd (1996) details a simple yet effective approach to art criticism using hypermedia. She recommends using HyperCard software, but her objectives relate easily to any hyper-linking authoring software, such as HyperStudio, PowerPoint 98, Digital Chisel, or HTML authoring software such as Pagemill 3.0 or Netscape Composer.

Keifer-Boyd's method is essentially an application of framed constructivist ideas to art criticism. She calls her approach "multivocal" because teams of students engage with an artwork while including different critical perspectives or voices. Prior to employing the "multivocal" critique, the teams of students were familiarized with the critical perspective they were assigned. Voices come

together when the class begins to construct meaning for the artwork by finding connections between each team's critical observations. Students use the hyperlinking software to document the connections they make and see new ones while critiquing the artwork.

In art history, interactive hypermedia resources, such as the Internet and CD-ROMs about artists, support the construction of meaning for works as a part of their historical context better than traditional media or methods. Using these resources for framed or open constructivist art tasks, students retrieve information from the Internet based solely on how they request it. Accessing one idea on the Internet generally leads to another and will more likely connect to much more. From the available information links, students from any point in their inquiry can access those that seem most interesting or relevant.

In the previous example of narrative art, students study- ing collage can do an Internet search for the following terms: narrative art and collage. If they are fortunate, a string of sites that include those terms will be revealed. Searching through one of those sites, they may encounter a link to view both Matisse's The Jazz Series or the collages of Romare Bearden. The Bearden virtual gallery may link to "Other African-American artists..." Students may follow the link and find a connection to artworks by Faith Ringgold or an interview with her. They may find a link on the Faith Ringgold page to "Other artworks like this..." that could lead them to medieval tapestries. The process may continue with students making use of CD-ROMs that address the topics discovered in their search. Moving from link to link, students connect ideas and develop their

The Bearden virtual gallery may link to "Other African-American artists..." Students may follow the link and find a connection to artworks by Faith Ringgold or an interview with her. They may find a link on the Faith Ringgold page to "Other artworks like this..." that could lead them to medieval tapestries. The process may continue with students making use of CD-ROMs that address the topics discovered in their search. Moving from link to link, students connect ideas and develop their own interpretation of the social, cultural, and artistic contexts of narrative art.




own interpretation of the social, cultural, and artistic contexts of narrative art.

Teaching in the discipline of aesthetics seems to be inherently constructivist in nature. Students' personal aesthetics represent their beliefs in relation to ideas such as beauty, artistic value, ethics, and morality in artworks. At the core of a learner's belief systems are memories of experiences that reinforce what they believe (Abelson, 1979). The incorporation of interactive hypermedia into the art ^' : classroom provides students with ~ x \ greater access to imagery, content and experiences that can form those beliefs. For / example, an "open" constr-uc- // .

'

tivist assignment could be 1 / given in which students define beauty. Using the ! i X

Internet and CD-ROMs in a \ manner very similar to the one described for art history,

~

students work individually or X '

collaboratively to gather experi- i : ences that help them create a.

' -:

personal definition of beauty. K . In studio production students must <' A

come to their own understanding of what a medium is and how it relates to their personal expression. The process of developing one's artistic style has always been essentially a process of constructing meaning. As has already been described, the Internet and CD-ROM resources could facilitate inquiries about studio techniques and the use of specific media in artworks by artists. Making use of those resources in the same manner reflects the creative process as well. Creative cognition requires production of useful but unique solutions to tasks in the form of divergent associations between ideas. This holds implications for the use of interactive hypermedia resources for brainstorming during which the learner searches for "inspiration" in the myriad of possibilities they consider.

Cautions Required Constructivist methods are not the best choice for all

content. Teaching the use of specific tools or techniques is quicker and more effective using direct demonstration and drill. Also, safety with media should never be a matter of "constructed meaning." In this situation, the teacher must be the presenter of accepted procedures and knowledge.

As a compromise, the teacher could present rules and step-by-step procedures, then allow students to discover the reasoning behind them.

'I'he teaching examples in the previous section would require the active presence of a guiding teacher as a constant. This reflects a danger of constructivist methods when used in the study of art. Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson

and Coulson (1991) directly suggest that the construction of meaning by the learner can

*i_ : . :, ' be detrimental if left completely to his ' ;" X~ ""~ or her own devices within "ill-struc-

i!'-/..' i x,x tured domains." "Ill-structured ? '~:" '.. '\ ~ domains" are knowledge areas in

. which separate but different concepts have overlapping

V" V types of experiences, open V concepts are prevalent, and

connections between concepts

./4',) ] are not easily seen, as in a ,

? ?/ domain such as art. In these

X domains, "sharing" experiences ;.i .'::!: ; / / are limited, and inevitably the

f; - X student does not recognize

4^ unreasonable constructs as such. The presence of the teacher as a

-:'; '~..'/^^ guide, as a sounding board for conclusions, is not precluded by technology. When

students work with interactive media and no teacher input, they end searches with either an oversimplified understanding of concepts or overt misunderstandings of concepts (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). Airasian and Walsh agree that learners engaged in such an experience can be a model of "activity, involvement, creativity, and the build- ing of personal knowledge and understanding." However, they warn that instructors should carefully examine "the nature of the knowledge actually constructed" (p. 446).

As a final caution, combining constructivist methods with technology does not happen quickly. Airasian and Walsh (1997) indicate that teachers and students need time to learn how to operate in a new paradigm. Teachers will have to prepare lessons and activities in a very different manner. They will need to determine the potential for accessing ideas rather than simply accessing content from a source and using it. Also, a greater amount of class time will be required to respond to individual students' constructions and inquiries. A 10-minute directed discussion may become a one-hour exploration process working in teams.

NOVEMBER 2001 / ART EDUCATION N



Facilitating the Use of Technology in the Visual Arts Classroom

The computer serves as the central tool for a classroom that makes use of constructivist learning tasks. The computer assists students in the construction of meaning for concepts in its ability to serve simultaneously as an information resource, an interactive learning tool, and a storage device (Nicaise & Barnes, 1996). The computer also serves as a sketchbook and as media for finished digital art products. Beyond that, to most effectively make use of technology in the construction of meaning in art, students should have access to: * Multiple, web-connected computers. Ideally, these

tools should be available in the classroom to support spontaneous inquiries. A more realistic solution might be to schedule time in the computer lab as part of the art lesson.

* Interactive databases of images and art content. These can be in the form of CD-ROMs, web sites, laser discs connected to a devoted computer terminal or TV, and so on. Again, the ideal would be to have these in the classroom with the necessary equipment to use them. A realistic approach would be for teachers to schedule time in the school library and have a varied selection of resources from which the students may choose.

*Simple graphics and word-processing software. Tools are needed to document meaning as it is constructed. If the computer is being used as a central tool in the construction process, then it remains an efficient choice as a means of documentation.

* Multimedia presentation software and equipment Affordable and easy to use, presentation or hypermedia software allow students to reinforce their understanding of connections between concepts by creating their own hyperlinks. Hypermedia titles tend to be more user friendly. Web-authoring tools use the same basic ideas, but allow for inquiry results to be posted as web-pages.

* E-mail, news groups, and electronic bulletin boards. These uses of the Internet can maintain and support student dialogue and inquiry outside and during class.

* Storage for computer data collected during the inquiry process. This could amount to a large-capacity disk such as a ZIP disk (100 or 200 megabytes of storage) or simple devoted space on the hard drive of the classroom computer.

Summary Interactive hypermedia technologies support the use of

constructivist teaching methods in visual arts classrooms. Their combination reflects how art students learn, as well as reinforcing the importance of students' individuality, allowing them to learn about art in a personal manner that will stay with them throughout their lives. But this combination does not lessen the role of the teacher. When making use of powerful technologies, art students continue to require supervision and support only a good art teacher can provide.

Michael Prater is a professor of art education at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES Abelson, R. P. (1979). Differences between belief and knowledge

systems. Cognitive Science, 3(4), 355-366. Airasian, P., & Walsh, M. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta

Kappan, 78(6), 444-449. Brandt, D.S. (1997). Teaching for understanding of the internet.

Communications of the ACM. 40(10), 112-117. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding:

The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Greene, M (1995). A perspective on teaching and learning in the arts. In: C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hicks, J. (1993). Technology and aesthetic education: A crucial synthesis. Art Education, 46(6), 42-46.

Keifer-Boyd,K. (1996). Interfacing hypermedia and the Internet with critical inquiry in the arts: Preservice training. Art Education 49(6), 33-41.

Nicaise, M., & Barnes, D. (1996). The union of technology and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 47(3), 205-212.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1977). Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York:

Viking. Perkins, N.P. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they

make a marriage? In T. Duffy, and D. Jonassen, (Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. (pp. 45-55) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publishers.

Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility,, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology 31(5), 24-33.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Yager, R. (1991). The learning model. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.




Documents

Learning to Draw || Constructivism and Technology in Art Education