The "New Art History"
dyk...@bvu.edu
I'm wondering if any of you folks who have a chance to read the Chronicle
of Higher Education have seen the article on new methods for teaching art
history. Briefly, the proposal is for greater emphasis on discussion
rather than lecture. In order to be effective though, the students are
expected to contribute analysis based on the research they have done. It
requires that certain images be assigned, and perhaps a suggested reading
list might be presented so that students may prepare for the upcoming
class. As reported by one of the professors who was interviewed, the
discussions can become rich with the varied research, and especially the
enlightened insights which the students introduce. It is acknowledged that
fewer images will be able to be considered since the progress is sometimes
slow, however the professor who claims to use this method effectively
reports it to be a trade off since the quality of the discussion is so much
greater.
Another professor who is somewhat skeptical of the method mentioned that so
many students are so poorly equipped to lend much insight in this type of
setting. He said that it works fairly well in upper division classes and
at the graduate level, but that at the lower division level the students
don't know enough political, cultural, or religious history to be able to
make much of a contribution.
So, the last two class periods of my art Renaissance art history class I
attempted some of these discussion methods. I showed slides in pairs and
introduced a topic which might be inspired by the two works. For example:
Durer's The Four Gospels and Raphael's Dispute of the Sacraments. And the
topic is Art as Propaganda. Well, I have to report that I am encouraged.
The discussions were refreshing, I was impressed with their recall of
factual data, and was pleased to hear them actually testing and expanding
eachother's analysis.
But of course this comes at the close of the semester after we've studied
the whole of European Renaissance so they were pretty well equipped for
some insightful discussion, (at least I"d like to think that). Looks like
I may have a busy summer......
And I have shows coming up in September and October.......
I'd be interested in other's reaction to the article.
Dennis L. Dykema
Helen Bakk
In article <1996May15.2...@bvu.edu>, dyk...@bvu.edu says...
>Another professor who is somewhat skeptical of the method mentioned that so
>many students are so poorly equipped to lend much insight in this type of
>setting. He said that it works fairly well in upper division classes and
>at the graduate level, but that at the lower division level the students
>don't know enough political, cultural, or religious history to be able to
>make much of a contribution.
I think class sizes are the defining difference. At a large university, where
undergraduate classes in the arts draw attendance from other colleges, the
class sizes can easily be auditorium-size. In these situations, it is usually
only possible to have repartee in the more limited enrollment of upper
division and graduate classes. I can't imagine anyone arguing against the
value of pre-class preparation and class round-table discussion as a means
of increasing student involvement and generating/keeping their interest.
I think that if class sizes are small enough to allow discussion, then the
remarks about students not being intellectually prepared don't hold much
water. The purpose of having them prepare BEFORE class for the coming
class discussion should make them aware--give them the knowledge--if
they do their homework. In order to be effective, the homework assignment
in preparation for the next class would have to be definitively laid out by
the prof in the syllabus, with a bibliography, books on reserve for the class, etc.
--
******************************************
From Her Holiness, Harpy of Hoopla.
Been there, done that, matters not.
~ Helen Bakk ~ I am NOT E-mailable.
*******************************************
mprice
DATE OF ISSUE PLEASE.
Nancy35511
Check out the Fall issue of Art Journal which examines the teaching of art
history survey courses.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
In article <1996May15.2...@bvu.edu>, dyk...@bvu.edu writes:
> I'm wondering if any of you folks who have a chance to read the Chronicle
> of Higher Education have seen the article on new methods for teaching art
> history.
read it. was nice to see art history represented for once :)
> Briefly, the proposal is for greater emphasis on discussion
> rather than lecture. [clip]
almost all art history classes I've taken have been lecture-intensive
with the exception of graduate level courses. That made much of the
learning "passive", whereas any discussion-based course involves much more
active participation... on both the teacher's and the students' part.
I was always how surprised by how lectury art history was when compared
to courses in my other areas of interest (physics, linguistics/literature,
art) all three of which always combined lectures with hands-on labs, or,
were discussion-based in the first place, even in introductory courses.
There's no such thing as "art history lab" except for the occasional
museum/gallery visit.
> Another professor who is somewhat skeptical of the method mentioned that so
> many students are so poorly equipped to lend much insight in this type of
> setting. He said that it works fairly well in upper division classes and
> at the graduate level, but that at the lower division level the students
> don't know enough political, cultural, or religious history to be able to
> make much of a contribution.
i regarded that professor's opinion as typical and somewhat moronic.
my experience as a teacher has been that if you underestimate
students, then most do badly. but if you challenge them, engage them,
etc., then most do very well. Most students are quite bright and
resourceful, given the opportunity.
probably the most difficult thing to do as a teacher in any
discipline is to share one's enthusiam and profound interest in
the course topics -- to motivate students' interest.
It at first seems more difficult to do that in a discussion
context... if you're used to teaching lecture-style. The tempo,
fluidity of the discussion, etc., often change rapidly. Some suggest
a kind of socratic method that first tests factual knowledge and slowly
moves towards more and more critical-thinking sorts of questions...
but i prefer going for the complex questions first... really getting
the ball rolling right away. One way I use of doing this is to keep
a stack of 3x5 cards with student's names on them. They are told in the
beginning of class that I will check off their participation on the
cards as I draw them randomly from the pack during the semester. When their
name is drawn from the pack, they are required to respond as completely as
they can to whatever we are discussing or whatever new question has been
brought up. Then, whenever the discussion lulls, I draw a card and ask
a new question or followup (etc.) to the student who's name I've called.
This does a few things: 1) it puts pressure on the students to have read or
studied the course materials b/c at any time any one of them could be
called on to participate; 2) it breaks up the discussion and allows the
quieter students a chance to participate when louder students have
"taken over" the discussion; 3) it prevents me from consciously or
unconsciously favoring any students b/c I don't know ahead of time
who I will call on; 4) it gives me a way of keeping track of
participation during the discussion. It's fun to throw in fictional
names as well (Elvis, Ronald Reagan, Duccio,) for some humor and
for lead-ins to new topics, if the discussion has really lulled.
btw, Best of skills and luck with the shows!
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
miss tree
>> Briefly, the proposal is for greater emphasis on discussion
>> rather than lecture. [clip]
>
>almost all art history classes I've taken have been lecture-intensive
>with the exception of graduate level courses. That made much of the
>learning "passive", whereas any discussion-based course involves much more
>active participation... on both the teacher's and the students' part.
--i'm an undergraduate college student concentrating in studio arts... last
january i had the oppportunity to take an art survey course (peleolithic to
gothic) that's main focus was active learning. instead of listening to long
lectures we were given assignments to sketch, in journals, artifacts we
were studying in our art history textbook (Gardner's)... the idea was to
teach us about the development of art by making us discover it ourselves as
we went long. when we learned about the development of the S-curve in greek
sculpture, we had to reproduce it ourselves, etc... vocabulary tests
involved sketching an example of what the vocab words illustrated. we also
had to brink in two arguments we had with our text reading each class, to
keep us aware that no source was absolutely correct. we had written journal
entries assigned also, and throughout the class we had hands-on studio
work. although this was only a month long class, i dfinitely benefitted
more from it than regular art history-- it kept me both physically and
critically interested. it was a very small class, about thirteen people,
and the teacher was very open to criticism from the students.
--
"form is matter dreaming" --R. Ducornet