Connecting Art Education Learning Tasks with the Artistic Field: The Factor of Quality in Art Lessons

  • Petra Å obáňová Department of Art Education, Faculty of Education, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic
  • Jana Jiroutová Department of Art Education, Faculty of Education, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.924
Keywords: quality of art lessons, art and art education, didactics of art education, quality factors of teaching art, quality of art tasks, quality of learning tasks in art education

Abstract

This theoretical study deals with interconnecting learning tasks of art education with the parent discipline of art education (that is, with the artistic field as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, 1996), while reflecting on the quality of art lessons in the Czech Republic. The authors draw on current theoretical and empirical research of quality that identifies individual quality factors. The most salient factors are the connection with the artistic field and the resulting ability of conceptual integration, together with curricular normativity, the intentional work of the teacher with educational content, characteristics of teaching such as the support of divergence, creative approaches, associativity, imagination, reflection, searching for intersections between pupils’ experience and the content of the subject, etc. The text also emphasises the fact that judgement on the quality of learning tasks should be based only on ontological-didactic and psychological-didactic aspects. The former relate to the cultural and artistic context of learning tasks, that is, the current values in the field of visual culture and the artistic field, while the latter consider the personal characteristics of each and every pupil.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al-Amri, M., Al-Radaideh, B., Al-Yahyai, F. , Almamari, B., & Alhajri, S. (2016). Artists and their artworks as a model for improving the quality of teaching in art education. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 21(1), 59–71.

Bourdieu, P. (2010). Pravidla umění: geneze a struktura literárního pole [The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field]. Host.

Dytrová, K., & Slavík, J. (2019). “Fousatý trojúhelník“ a problém analýzy úloh v expresivních vzdělávacích oborech [“A hairy triangle†and the issue of task analysis in expressive fields of study]. Kultura, umění a výchova, 7(1). http://www.kuv.upol.cz/index.php?seo_url=aktualni-cislo&casopis=17&clanek=196

Eisner, W. E. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. Routledge.

Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. Columbia University: Teachers College.

Fulková, M. (2013). Pedagogické a kulturologické kontexty vzdělávacích programů Uměleckoprůmyslového musea v Praze a Galerie Rudolfinum [Pedagogical and cultural contexts of the educational programmes of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague and the Rudolfinum Gallery]. In Galerijní a muzejní edukace 2: vzdělávací programy Uměleckoprůmyslového musea v Praze a Galerie Rudolfinum (pp. 13–22). Univerzita Karlova, Pedagogická fakulta.

Janík T., et al. (2013). Kvalita (ve) vzdělávání: obsahově zaměřený přístup ke zkoumání a zlepšování výuky [Quality (in) education: A content-oriented approach to researching and improving teaching]. Masarykova univerzita.

Janík, T., & Slavík, J. (2007). Vztah obor – vyuÄovací pÅ™edmÄ›t jako metodologický problem [The relationship between a field of study and a subject as a methodological problem]. Orbis scholae, 2(1), 54–66.

Knecht, P. (2007). Didaktická transformace aneb od „didaktického zjednoduÅ¡ení“ k „didaktické rekonstrukci“ [Didactic transformation or from “didactic simplification†to “didactic reconstructionâ€]. Orbis scholae, 2(1), 67–81.

Lichtwark, A. (1900). Ãœbungen in der Betrachtung von Kunstwerken. Nach Versuchen mit einer Schulklasse [Exercises in contemplation of works of art. After experiments with a school class]. University of California Libraries.

Lindsley, E. (2006). Teaching artist as teacher trainer. Teaching Artist Journal, 4(1), 56–62.

PetříÄek, M. (2009). MyÅ¡lení obrazem: průvodce souÄasným filosofickým myÅ¡lením pro stÅ™ednÄ› nepokroÄilé [Thinking with images: A guide to contemporary philosophical thinking for the intermediate advanced]. Herrmann & synové.

PlavÄan, P. (2018). PISA: cesta ku kvalite [PISA: The path to quality]. MSD.

Pospíšil, A., Řepa, K., & Šobáňová, P., et al. (Eds.) (2019). Kvalita ve výtvarné výchově [Quality in art education]. Česká sekce INSEA.

Slavík, J. (1997). Od výrazu k dialogu ve výchově. Artefiletika [From expression to dialogue in education. Artefiletics]. Karolinum.

Slavík, J., & Lukavský, J. (2012). Hodnocení kvality expresivních tvořivých úloh ve výuce (na příkladu výtvarné výchovy) [Evaluation of the quality of expressive creative tasks in lessons (on the example of art education)]. Orbis Scholae, 6(3), 77–97.

Slavík, J. (2003). NÄ›kolik poznámek k úvodníku J. Valenty „PotÅ™ebujeme didaktiku teorie?“ [A few remarks on J. Valenta’s editorial “Do we need didactics of theory?â€]. Pedagogika, 53(2), 202–205.

Slavík, J. (2015). Artefiletika – příležitost pro expresi v dialogu teorie a praxe [Artefiletics – An opportunity for expression in the dialogue of theory and practice]. Kultura, umění a výchova, 3(1). http://www.kuv.upol.cz/index.php?seo_url=aktualni-cislo&casopis=8&clanek=92

Sokolová, K. (2010). Výtvarná výchova – vizuálna edukácia – edukácia k umeniu [Art education – visual education – education toward art]. In A. KavÄáková & H. MysliveÄková (Eds.), Josef Vydra (1884–1959) v kontextu umÄ›lecké a výtvarnÄ› pedagogické avantgardy 20. století: historie a souÄasnost univerzitního výtvarného vzdÄ›lávání v Olomouci (pp. 183–185). Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.

Å obáňová, P. (2015). PříspÄ›vek k teoretické analýze referenÄního rámce výtvarné a galerijní pedagogiky [Contribution to the theoretical analysis of the reference framework of art and gallery pedagogy]. Kultura, umÄ›ní a výchova, 3(1). http://www.kuv.upol.cz/index.php?seo_url=aktualni-cislo&casopis=8&clanek=91

Å obáňová, P. (2016). Realizované vs. pÅ™edepsané kurikulum – reflexe kurikulární reformy a její implementace do praxe [Implemented vs. prescribed curriculum – A reflection of curricular reform and its application in practice]. In P. Å obáňová (Ed.), SouÄasný stav a perspektivy výtvarné výchovy: Reflexe kurikulárních dokumentů pro vÅ¡eobecné vzdÄ›lávání (pp. 27–52). ÄŒeská sekce INSEA.

The Wallace Foundation. (2009). Qualities of quality: Understanding excellence in arts education. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/pages/default.aspx

Uhl SkÅ™ivanová, V. (2018). Profesní kompetence uÄitelů v mezinárodním srovnání [Professional competence of teachers in international comparison]. Výtvarná výchova, 57(1–2), 6–19.

UNESCO. (2015). Education for all 2000–2015. UNESCO Publishing. EFA global monitoring report.

Uždil, J. (1968). UmÄ›lecká kritéria ve výtvarné práci dÄ›tí [Artistic criteria in children’s art work]. In B. MaleÄek & J. Brožek (Eds.), UmÄ›ní a výchova: výtvarná výchova – výchova pro budoucnost: zpráva z XVIII. svÄ›tového kongresu INSEA - Mezinárodní organizace pro výchovu umÄ›ním) (pp. 100–104). International Society for Education through Art.

Published
2020-12-22
How to Cite
ŠobáňováP., & Jiroutová, J. (2020). Connecting Art Education Learning Tasks with the Artistic Field: The Factor of Quality in Art Lessons. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 10(4), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.924
Issue
Vol 10 No 4 (2020): Art, for Children's Sake! At the Crossroads of Making, Understanding and Teaching Visual Art
Section
FOCUS

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
  2. The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
  3. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  4. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.