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 12:04:11 -0800

Respond to this message.


I read, with interest, your statements regarding the content (or lack of
it) in university education classes. You have 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 leading to
certification in art education, these should be present. Many of these
topics, however are open-ended in that they are situational. For
example, 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 the Holmes Program, 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 art education 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 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.