Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: a personal reply to all univ./coll. professors on our

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Nancy Walkup (Walkup.EDU)
Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:24:12 -0600


This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_6732E4C2.7E1F70BD
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Sidnie and Fran:

As far as I know, there are no recommendations for time allotments for
any aspect of discipline-based art education (DBAE). DBAE is an
approach to teaching a comprehensive program and is not a curriculum.

The time devoted to the different aspects of art production, art
history, art criticism, and aesthetics depends on the objectives of
the lesson or unit. Art production will almost always take more time,
but all the disciplines are equal in value. And, as Sidnie points out,
there is no particular sequence that has to be followed. It's based on
what makes the most sense.

Hope this helps.

Nancy

Nancy Walkup
Project Coordinator
North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts
PO Box 305100 University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203
walkup
940.565.3986
FAX 940-565-4867

>>> Sidnie Miller <sidmill.us> 01/11/98 12:16pm >>>
Dear Fran, As I recall the percentage that DBAE recommends is
something
like 75-80% on production with the remainder on the other 3 parts. I
see no reason that you cannot start the production and while the kids
are working and thus motivated discuss the historical implications,
do ongoing critiques at various phases and discuss aesthetics on an
ongoing basis. This only seems reasonable to me. Sid

###########################
# Sidnie Miller #
# Elko Junior High School #
# 777 Country Club Drive #
# Elko, NV 89801 #
# 702-738-7236 #
###########################

--=_6732E4C2.7E1F70BD
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from web1.pub.getty.edu ([192.215.101.9])
by unt.edu (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.1 v3)
; Sun, 11 Jan 98 13:19:26 CST
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by web1.pub.getty.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA12210
for artsednet-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsn.k12.nv.us ([207.197.127.4] (may be forged))
by web1.pub.getty.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA12206
for <artsednet.edu>; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newnsn.nsn.k12.nv.us (newnsn.nsn.k12.nv.us [207.197.127.5])
by nsn.k12.nv.us (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA10357;
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (sidmill@localhost)
by newnsn.nsn.k12.nv.us (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA21673;
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:16:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newnsn.nsn.k12.nv.us: sidmill owned process doing -bs
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980110124618.13058B-100000.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980111101344.21642A-100000.nv.us>
Sender: owner-newartsednet
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:16:55 -0600
From: Sidnie Miller <sidmill.us>
To: fmaiu+@pitt.edu
Cc: bkramer.us, artsednet.edu
Subject: Re: a personal reply to all univ./coll. professors on our
list....
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Fran, As I recall the percentage that DBAE recommends is
something
like 75-80% on production with the remainder on the other 3 parts. I
see no reason that you cannot start the production and while the kids
are working and thus motivated discuss the historical implications,
do ongoing critiques at various phases and discuss aesthetics on an
ongoing basis. This only seems reasonable to me. Sid

###########################
# Sidnie Miller #
# Elko Junior High School #
# 777 Country Club Drive #
# Elko, NV 89801 #
# 702-738-7236 #
###########################

--=_6732E4C2.7E1F70BD--