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

college courses vs. reality

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Karen Hamblen (KHamblen)
Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:40:12 -0800

Respond to this message.

I read, with interest, your statements regarding the content (or lack of it)
in university education classes. You have given a fairly comprehensive
list of many of the topics discussed in such classes (taught by art
educators, I would hope) as well as experiences gleaned through
practicum field work prior to student teaching. I think that it is important
to note that these are practical considerations that are dealt with in any
series of art education preservice classes plus the field experiences of
a practicum and student teaching. In any established program offering
certification in art education, these should be present. Many of these
topics, however, are contested and open-ended, in that they are
situational. Preservice students can receive insights on how to deal
with troubled teens, but this changes from school to school, class to
class--and from year to year, decade to decade.

Some programs, such as Holmes Programs, try to provide preservice
students with more (and earlier) field experiences and more field
experiences that are integrated with and related to university methods
classes. This provides more in-depth and varied field experiences,
which is a partial answer to some of your concerns, but again, in a
quality art education program, the topics you cite are dealt with as an
"ordinary" part of the course/field experience curriculum. I would hope
that these are positive changes from the 1960s when methods classes
were often few, taught by generalists, were not specific to art
education, etc. Hence, I think that history does teach us some
lessons--and that it is essential that all art educators have a basic
understanding of what has happened in our history--it makes for art
teachers that are thoughtful and knowledgeable of the implications of
new developments (some are not very new)--and university instructors
who do not "repeat the errors of the past," to paraphrase.

Respond to this message.