Showing posts with label TAB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TAB. Show all posts

Integrating a Multicultural Curriculum in a Choice-Based Classroom

This paper will discuss multicultural education and introduce six strategies for incorporating a multicultural curriculum in a choice-based classroom.  It is easy to overlook multicultural learning experiences in the choice-based classroom but a multicultural education is vastly important in our ever-changing world.  With the internet connecting people all around the world and more and more multinational companies, a multicultural education is becoming increasingly important.  Also the population of the United States is becoming increasingly heterogeneous (Anderson, 1996b).  As such, students need a greater understanding of multiple cultures in order to work and live with people from a greater variety of cultures.  Multicultural education is crucial to students being successful in life.  Multicultural education is for every student, not just the “other” (Delacruz, 1995).  Students from the majority culture need a multicultural education as much as minority students.  It is important that all students have a strong multicultural education.  Also, a multicultural education empowers students (Stuhr, Petrovich-Mwaniki, & Wasson, 1990).   Multicultural education can raise students’ self-esteem (Ballenge-Morris & Stuhr, 2001). 
We live in a multicultural society dominated by one group's cultural heritage. Denied equal educational opportunity to learn about their own cultural roots, students with non-Western and/or non-mainstream cultural heritages too often experience alienation, negative self-concepts, or low self-esteem, putting them at a further disadvantage in our competitive society. The repair response in multicultural pluralism suggests that by presenting in positive fashion the art of marginalized cultural heritages, we can build positive self-concepts and provide positive identities for those now suffering marginalization (Collins & Sandell, 1992, p. 11)
Culture can be thought of in several ways.  From an anthropological perspective, culture is comprised of many factors which affect all interactions, including physical and mental ability, class, gender, age, politics, religion, and ethnicity (Stuhr, Petrovich-Mwaniki, & Wasson, 1990).  Anderson defines culture as, “…not externally or geophysically determined. Rather it is made up of individuals and groups who make choices and influence each other in the development of collective values, perspectives, mores, and ways of doing things” (1996b p. 198). From a sociological perspective, one might conceptualize culture in terms of parts and people and the interaction between them (Archer, 1988).  According to Kuster, culture is
…the process, as well as the product, of a group of people bound together by some combination of common factors.  People are the authors of culture, as each interacts and learns from one another. Culture is constantly changing because it is influenced by factors that are dynamic in nature.  Social, economic, religious, and political factors influence culture.  Culture, in this sense, is what guides how people act, think, and feel and is a creative process involving behaviors, values, and substance shared by people as they seek to give meaning and significance to their lives.  There can be no pure and simple culture, in that culture is always multifaceted and complex (2006, p. 33).
Culture is a lens through which an individual views his or her world and it is paramount that students understand a variety of cultures if they are to be responsible global citizens who can work with people from all over the world.
According to Stuhr, “multicultural education is a concept, a process, and an educational reform movement” (1994, p. 171).  The term “multiculturalism” first appeared in Canada in the 1950’s (Dudek, 2006).  “Multicultural education emerged in the early 1960s out of the Civil Rights Movement as a means for reconstructing school and society” (Stuhr, 1994, p. 171). 
There are several approaches to a multicultural curriculum a teacher can employ.  A Socio-Anthropological approach looks at cultures the way an anthropologist would (Stuhr, Petrovich-Mwaniki, & Wasson, 1990).  This approach can be overwhelming as it requires much research on the part of the teacher and takes a lot of class time as students examine primary source materials. This approach is not well suited for the choice-based classroom where most of students’ time is spent on art production.  There is teaching the culturally different. 
The idealized goal of such an approach in art education is to equip all students with cognitive skills, technical efficiency, conceptual information, and the aesthetic values of the dominant culture of the U.S., to enable them to get jobs in the arts and to participate in fine art cultural events (Stuhr, 1994, p. 172)
The problem with this approach is that it teaches everyone to the standards of white, upper-class, males.  There is no appreciation for diversity.
The exceptional and culturally different multicultural approach to art education is based on the assumption that there is a specific body of knowledge to be learned, favoring a fine art world view based on the dominant artistic traditions of the Western European and North American cultures, over other sociocultural art worlds (Stuhr, 1994, p. 172).
This approach ignores the contributions of the non-Western world.  “The human relations approach defines the major purpose of schooling as helping students of different backgrounds to get along better in a world made continually smaller by modern technology and mass media” (Stuhr, 1994, p. 173).  This approach focuses reducing prejudices and biases by focusing on the similarities between cultures, but it does not focus on the differences between cultures. “An art program that promotes the single group studies approach will focus on the group as a people (for example, American Indians, Latinos, African Americans, or women)” (Stuhr, 1994, p. 174).  This approach is used more in colleges and universities than with K-12 classrooms.  There is the multiculturalism of liberal-humanism which is based on the presumption that we owe equal respect to all cultures (Levine-Rasky, 2006).  Levine-Rasky states that this approach assumes a “…universal sameness and equality of every human person” (2006, p. 89).  This approach is based on “difference-blindness” and fails to acknowledge the uniqueness of every individual (Levine-Rasky, 2006).  This paper espouses the Multicultural Education Approach.  This approach includes teaching students about the contributions of diverse groups of people which is the backbone of the strategies in this paper (Ballengee-Morris & Sturh, 2001).  The Social Reconstructionist Approach is similar to the Multicultural Education Approach.  The main difference is that the Social Reconstructionist Approach also aims to make changes in the community for the benefit of discriminated against groups.  This paper is not opposed to this approach, but helping the community is beyond the scope of this paper.
According to Dudek, there are two types of multiculturalism:  government sanctioned multiculturalism and everyday “on-the-streets” multiculturalism (2006).  “Of course, the everyday "on-the-streets" version of multiculturalism is very different from the Disneyland version of friendship and tolerance that hegemonic constructions of multiculturalism present” (Dudek, 2006, p. 3).  Ghassan Hage argues that multiculturalism,
…works only as a model in which the White nationalist controls the racialized other. In other words, as long as the so-called ethnic other obeys the rules of the non-racialized status quo, then multiculturalism works. Hage demonstrates how tolerance fades when there is a perceived danger of the racialized other changing the fabric of (White) …life and identity (Dudek, 2006, p. 3).
For much of the history of the United States, the school’s job regarding immigrant students was to assimilate them.   Multiculturalism is about celebrating our diversity.
Multiculturalism builds on the assertion that because of the end result-an Euro-centric orientation- assimilation should be rejected. Multiculturalism's doctrine of equal-respect suggests that the recognition of the contributions of all racial and ethnic groups take place in the field of education, as well as other arenas, and that an emphasis be placed on the importance of maintaining cultural diversity (George & Yancey, 2004, p.4).
According to Collins and Sandell,
Finding the integrationist vision of the melting pot and the specter of the separatist ghetto intellectually naive and/or ethically repugnant, most multiculturalists in art education subscribe to pluralism - not only as an accurate description of "what is," but as a prescription for liberation and a model for teaching about art from other than the dominant culture's point of view (1992, p8).
Despite its many benefits and its popularity among advocates, multicultural education has been quite controversial (Adejumo, 2002).  If pluralism would seem to be an intellectually and ethically safe position, it is nevertheless politically problematic” (Collins & Sandell, 1992, p. 8).  Some claim that all that is worth knowing comes from the great men of Western culture (Anderson, 1996a). However advocates for multicultural education argue that,
Western culture is inherently repressive internally in relation to minority subcultures and externally imperialistic; 2) the Western canon is unrepresentative of a broad social spectrum, thus inherently elitist; 3) its political agenda is keeping power and control for the elite but that this agenda is disguised through positioning value assumptions as neutrals or truth (Anderson, 1996a, p. 56).
Of course, one must still look critically at the art of other cultures. 
Although cultural pluralists in art education argue that Western mainstream art is neither politically nor ideologically innocent, we tend to embrace the art of other cultures as if it were harmless, failing to examine its politics and ideology (Collins & Sandell, 1992, p. 9).
Collins and Sandell further state,
Valuing cultural differences out of their context perpetuates the Western tendency to romanticize and trivialize, to render harmless and diverting the differences of other cultures, but it does not begin to suggest how we might balance our need for connection with our desire for transcendence (1992, p. 11).
Choice-based art education is a nationally recognized grassroots approach to art education.  It started over thirty-five years ago in Massachusetts classrooms and was researched at Massachusetts College of Art.  In choice-based art education students are regarded as artists and they are offered real choices for responding to their own ideas and interests through the making of art. Choice-based art education supports multiple modes of learning for the diverse needs of students (Douglas, 2013).
In a choice-based classroom, each class begins with a five minute demo by the teacher.  This is the extent of whole class instruction.  Then the majority of class time is spent working in studio centers where students choose the media they will work with and the content of their artwork.  The teacher then acts as a coach helping each student create his or her best work.  This may include small group instruction and individual instruction.  Classes conclude with students sharing their work with the class (Douglas & Jaquith, 2009, Hathaway, 2013). 
In non-choice-based classrooms, such as DBAE classrooms, multiculturalism is often taught in a superficial way.  For example, students may make Day of the Dead skeletons without learning anything about the culture surrounding this holiday.  Kuster states, “The implementation of multicultural art education in the United States from the 1970s until the present has been strongly focused on generalized explicit or overt cultural characteristics such as dress, speech, and holiday or ceremonial behaviors” (2006, p. 33)  Multicultural education must go more in depth.  According to Kuster,
…multiculturalism is more than adding on to the curriculum a conglomeration of superficial aspects of cultural life. Multicultural competence causes students to better understand how each person within a society affects and is influenced by others, thus contributing to the on-going definition and the creation of culture (2006 p.33).   
  According to Stuhr, Petrovich-Mwaniki and Wasson,
By merely presenting exemplars of cultural products such as Egyptian Hieroglyphics, American Indian totem poles, and/or Australian bark paintings followed by the production of copies of these forms, many art educators are missing the point. Such tokenism not only trivializes the aesthetic production of all sociocultural groups, but, what is worse, it avoids confronting the real challenge of critically apprehending the meaning of the object, artist, process, in the sociocultural context. Further it fails to make legitimate links and contributions to the students' lives in ways that are morally, ethically and cognitively sound (1992, p. 21).
There are several ways in which the choice-based classroom naturally meets the needs of a multicultural classroom.  Because students decide their own projects and work at their own pace, the choice-based classroom meets students, from all cultures, where they are and all ability levels are accepted and encouraged. Students also naturally draw inspiration from their own interests so the choice-based classroom also allows all students to incorporate their sociocultural identity into their work.  Students are not just copying another culture’s tradition.  They can explore and further understand their own culture.  According to Lopez,
Whereas in most lessons, the educator stands as the authority on the subject, here by choosing to examine the diverse cultures of our students, we are required to relinquish authority and allow our students to teach us through their lived experiences. Students then become ambassadors of their personal culture (2009, p. 23).
Further, as students share their work at the end of each class, they learn about each other’s cultures from someone in that culture.
Because whole-group direct instruction is limited to the first five minutes of class, it is easy to think there is not enough time for in depth multicultural curriculum, but that is not the case.  One method for incorporating multicultural curriculum into the classroom is to meet individual students where they are with their interest (Douglas & Jaquith 2009).  For example, if a student is making a dragon, this offers the teacher the opportunity to teach that student about the similarities and differences between European dragons, Asian dragons, and South American dragons.  The student has already shown an interest in dragons and will likely be open to learning more about them.  Because the teacher is not leading the whole class in a single project the teacher has the time and insight into the student’s interest to help the student make a personally meaningful connection.  The teacher has to be on the lookout for opportunities to supplement students’ learning with multicultural curriculum.
In the choice-based classroom, the room itself is a teaching tool (Douglas & Jaquith, 2009, Hathaway, 2013, Hetland, Winner, Veenema, &Sheridan 2007).  Each studio center includes informative signage to guide students as they use that center.  The teacher can use this opportunity to showcase the work of minority artists as exemplars for each center.  For instance, the teacher can show examples of Kara Walker and Romare Bearden’s work in the collage center and examples of Haegue Yang and Lee Bul’s work in the sculpture center.  
Along the same note, the teacher can further utilize the classroom as a teaching tool by creating bulletin boards about different cultures throughout the year.   The bulletin boards can include background information about the culture and multiple examples of artists’ work from that culture.  The bulletin boards can then be changed regularly so students learn about a variety of cultures throughout the year.  For example, one bulletin board may be about the Edo period in Japan, with background information about that period and examples by key artists from that time.  Then the bulletin board may be changed to teach about the culture of the Mayan people or contemporary Indian art.  Another approach the teacher could use is to compare and contrast how different cultures treat a subject. For example, a bulletin board may contain self-portraits from a variety of cultures or landscapes from different cultures.  The options are endless.
An additional method for incorporating a multicultural curriculum into the choice-based classroom is to utilize the five minute museum approach.  The five minute museum is when for the five minute demo at the beginning of a class students are shown artwork which they discuss for five minutes, thus turning the classroom into a museum of sorts (Douglas & Jaquith, 2009). There are several approaches the teacher can take when using the five minute museum.  For instance, the teacher can show a variety of work from a single culture and students can gain a greater understanding of that culture.  Another tactic the teacher can employ is to choose a theme and show work from a variety of cultures that relate to the selected theme.  Students can then compare and contrast how artists from different cultural backgrounds express the same theme.  A third way the teacher might approach the five minute museum is to select a specific time period and show what artist from different cultures were working on at that time period.  For example the teacher could have students compare and contrast the work of several contemporary artists from different cultural backgrounds.  The five minute museum not only give students the opportunity to practice talking about art, it also gives students the chance to learn about a variety of cultures.
Another technique for integrating a multicultural curriculum into the choice-based classroom is to work with other teachers.   When students are learning about a culture in their English Language Arts class or their Social Studies class, it is the perfect time to teach those students about the art of that culture.  According to Lopez, ” through integration with the other curriculums such as social studies and language arts, educators could offer all students deeper exposure, understanding and relevance” (2009, p. 23).  For example, when students learn about the colonization of the Americas in their Social Studies class, the teacher can use this opportunity to teach about the art of a local Native American tribe or when students read Langston Hughes in their English Language Arts class the teacher can teach about the artist of the Harlem Renaissance.
 Finally, the teacher can always teach about a topic for more than one class.  When you cannot cover the topic in one five minute demo break it up into two or three five minute demos.  For example, the art of South Africa may take several classes as you also teach about the history of Apartheid and compare it to the United States’ history of Jim Crow laws.  This may take several classes to fully cover a topic such as this and there is nothing wrong with that.
There are a few things to look out for when teaching a multicultural curriculum.  Do not be superficial when teaching about a culture (Stuhr, Petrovich-Mwaniki, & Wasson, 1990; Stinespring & Kennedy, 1995).   Do not just show students a culture’s artwork, teach them about the work’s context within the culture (Anderson, 1996).  For example, do not just show students artwork by Native Americans, but explain the works’ context within the Native American culture.
Also be careful to not teach stereotypes (Stinespring & Kennedy, 1995).  For instance, when teaching about the artwork of the Australian Aboriginal people, do not just show dot paintings, because the students will think that dot paintings are all the Australian Aboriginal people create.  Show a variety of work so that students get a more complete understanding of the art of the Australian Aboriginal people.
In conclusion, here are six strategies for incorporating a multicultural curriculum in a choice-based art class.  First, meet students where they are with their interests.  Look for the teachable moments that naturally arise out of students following their passions.  Use the room itself as a teaching tool by incorporating multicultural examples in each studio center.  Also, utilize bulletin boards to teach about multiple cultures.  The five minute museum is another approach teachers can use to incorporate multicultural education in a choice-based classroom.  Collaborating with other teachers to teach integrated lessons and build on what students are learning in their other classes is another method for adding a multicultural component to the choice-based classroom.  Finally, the teacher can use several classes to go more in depth, using multiple five minute demos to fully cover a topic.  Do not think of a multicultural curriculum as just one more thing you have to include, instead look at it as an opportunity to expand your students’ worldviews.


References
Adejumo, C. O. (2002).  Considering multicultural art education Art Education, 55(2), pp. 33-39
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193988.
Anderson, T. (1996a). The national standards for arts education: A (multi)cultural assessment. 
Studies in Art Education, 38(1), pp. 55-60.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320313.
Anderson, T. (1996b). Toward a cross-cultural approach to art criticism. Studies in Art
Education, 36(4), pp. 198-209.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320934.
Archer, M. S. (1988).  Culture and agency:  The place of culture in social theory.  New York,
NY:  Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
Ballengee-Morris, C & Stuhr, P. L. (2001).  Multicultural art and visual cultural education in a
changing world.  Art Education 54(4) pp. 6-13.  Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193897.
Collins, G. & Sandell, R.  (1992). The politics of multicultural art education.  Art Education
45(6) pp. 8-13.
Delacruz, E. M. (1995). Multiculturalism and art education: Myths, misconceptions, and
misdirections.  Art Education, 48(3).  Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193523.
Douglas, K. M. & Jaquith, D. B. (2009). Engaging learners through artmaking:  Choice-based
art education in the classroom.  New York, NY:  Teachers College Press
Douglas, K. M. (2013, October 14)  Re: TAB article/ Long list of resources [Online forum
Dudek, D.  (2006).  Dogboys and lost things; or anchoring a floating signifier: Race and critical
multiculturalism.  Ariel 37(4) pp. 1-20
George, D. & Yancey, G.  (2004).  Taking stock of America’s attitudes on cultural diversity: An
analysis of public deliberation on multiculturalism, assimilation and intermarriage. 
Journal of Comparative Family Studies 35(1) pp. 1-19.
Hathaway, N. (2013).  Smoke and mirrors:  Art teacher as magician.  Art Education 66(3), pp. 9-
21.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007).  Studio thinking: The real
benefits of visual arts education.  New York, NY:  Teachers College Press
Kuster, D. (2006).  Back to the basics: Multicultural theories revisited and put into practice.  Art
Education 59(5) pp. 33-39
Levine-Rasky, C.  (2006). Discontinuities of multiculturalism.  Canadian Ethnic Studies 38(3)
pp.87-104. 
Lopez, V.  (2009).  Where does the hyphen go?  Four stories of the dual-culture experience in the
art classroom.  Art Education 20 pp. 19-24.
Stinespring, J. A. & Kennedy, L. C. (1995).  Meeting the need for multiculturalism in the art
classroom.  The Clearing House 68(3) pp. 139-145.  Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189061 .
Stuhr, P. L., Petrovich-Mwaniki, L., & Wasson, R. (1990).   Curriculum guidelines for the
multicultural art classroom.   Art Education 45(1), pp. 16-24 Retrieved from
Stuhr, P. L.  (1994).  Multicultural art education and social reconstruction.  Studies in Art
Education. 35(3)  pp. 171-178.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320218

DBAE vs. TAB

 
DBAE (Discipline-Based Art Education) Verses TAB (Teaching for Artistic Behavior):
Two Approaches to Art Education


Joni H. Hough



University of North Carolina at Charlotte
ARTE 5121
Dr. David Gall
December 10, 2009




 Discipline-based art education (DBAE) has been the leading framework for art education for the past twenty-five years.  According to Day (as cited in Stankiewicz, 2000),
…the discipline-based approach has influenced the National Standards for Arts Education, the framework for the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress in the arts, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards guidelines for art certification, as well as state art guidelines, district art programs, and the art teaching of many individuals (p. 311).
Teaching for Artistic Behavior (TAB) is a choice-based approach to art education (http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/, 2009).  This paper will compare and contrast these two methods to art education.
           
In 1982, the J. Paul Getty Trust established the Getty Center for Education in the Arts (Duke, 1988).  According to Duke (1988), “Unlike a grant-making foundation, which funds the programs of others, the primary purpose of the Getty is to create and operate its own programs” (p. 7).   “By the mid 1980s, the Getty Center for Education in the Arts…became a major catalyst for reform in art education” (Delacruz & Dunn, 1995, p. 46).   Duke (1988) states,
The Center found that the status of art education had declined alarmingly.  Most students spend 12 years in school during which they receive some 12,000 hours of instruction in all subjects.  Less than one percent of this time is spent in studying any of the art forms, and 80 percent of all students who graduate from public high schools have little, if any, instruction in the arts at all... Moreover, arts instruction in many places has been limited to teaching technical skills for making art - not to teaching students about the historical and critical aspects of art as well. While studio-oriented art may have been a satisfying experience for a few innately gifted students, it meant that children were not receiving sufficient instruction in the cultural and historical contributions of art or in how to analyze, interpret, and value works of art (p. 7).
DBAE became the art program championed by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts.  DBAE had the full weight of the Getty Center for Education in the Arts behind it with programs for public advocacy, professional training, the creation of DBAE model programs, theoretical research, and curriculum (Duke, 1988).

Through DBAE, the Getty Center for Education in the Arts would change the face of art education.  According to Delacruz and Dunn (1995),
In 1987, in the special Summer issue of the Journal of Aesthetic Education devoted to aspects of DBAE, Gilbert Clark, Michael Day, and Dwaine Greer boldly spelled out the theory of DBAE. According to Clark, Day, and Greer (1987) discipline-based art education draws content from four foundational disciplines-art studio, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics-as these disciplines are defined by a community of scholars and experts who have devoted themselves to inquiry in these fields of study. Formal written curricula in the visual arts should be developed for all grade levels within the school district. Curricula should be structured sequentially and hierarchically, and implemented on a district-wide basis. Student achievement and program effectiveness should be formally and systematically assessed and evaluated (p. 47).
DBAE elevated art education to a new status.  It was now an actual discipline, with a testable curriculum.  Hamblen (1987) maintains that, “The language of DBAE is one of a no-frills, no-nonsense program that leaves little doubt that budgeted money will be well-spent and that there will be no hedging on what needs to be done and what will be accomplished” (p. 69).
           
During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, DBAE flourished, but it was not without its critics.  Hamblen (1987) states,
 In my opinion these educational perspectives alone are not adequate to the needs of a pluralistic society undergoing rapid change and requiring a variety of types of input and a variety of view-points. These rationalistic perspectives do not allow for curriculum choices being problematic and open to dispute and challenge (p. 69).
Hamblen (1987) further condemns the art criticism aspect of DBAE, maintaining,
Considering, however, that children will be studying exemplars, this aspect of art criticism is also predetermined in that children will be asked to evaluate what has already been given validation by the learned. Focusing on what is deemed to represent the aesthetic heights of a culture could give students a distorted view of art and a view that has little resemblance to the world in which they live (p. 72).
Hamblen (1987) also points out,
If standardized testing becomes an overriding concern, lower cognitive levels can be expected to constitute much of the art curriculum. The metaphoric qualities of art, so integral to its understanding, will have little place in the identification and convergent responses required by objective test questions. Statements that art instruction should emulate other subject areas need to be assessed as to whether the dominant characteristics of general education, beyond their legitimating power, are desirable. It is in the area of the cognitive level of instruction occurring that the consequences of teacher-proof materials, predefined outcomes, and standardized testing could become all too evident (p. 75).
According to Stankiewicz (2000), “Although DBAE initially signaled attention to content, and was criticized for the other two components of art education – the learner and the social context” (p. 311).
           
The Getty Center for Education in the Arts did listen to some of DBAE’s critics.  “In their attempt to accommodate diverse views about art education (and the vehement criticisms of DBAE in particular), the GCEA (Getty Center for Education in the Arts) found itself in the midst of the multicultural education movement” (Delacruz & Dunn, 1995, p. 47).  Delacruz and Dunn also state,
Many of the participants attending the 1989 and 1992 Issues Seminars identified common aims for multicultural education and DBAE. Both movements recognized the need for programs of study that embrace ethnic diversity. Both movements recognized the need to identify, examine, and incorporate alternative ways of looking at art.  Both movements recognize the need to address the problem of context: that is, the attempt to study artists, art forms, and cultures out of their original settings. And finally, both movements recognize that no single voice in the field ‘speaks for’ DBAE or multiculturalism (p. 48).

Although, the Getty Center for Education in the Arts did address the need for multicultural content to be added to the DBAE curriculum, there are still issues with some of the basic tenets of DBAE.  For example, Stankiewicz (2000) points out,
Passive metaphors of learners receiving objectified knowledge from external authorities should be replaced by conceptions of the learner as an active agent, setting personal goals for learning, and creating meaning through encounters with art (Erickson, Katter, Lankford, Roucher, & Stewart, 1999). Both content and learner are structured by gender, ethnicity, class, and all the other cultural factors that contribute to the production and reproduction of shared values (p. 311).
It is in this area that TAB excels.
           
Whereas DBAE had financial and political support from the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, TAB is a grassroots organization that was formed for and by art teachers (Douglas & Jaquith, 2009).  Although TAB is supported by Brown University, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, and Bridgewater State College, “…it remains an independent movement firmly planted in classroom practice” (Douglas & Jaquith, 2009, p. xii).  According to teachingforartisticbehavior.org (2009),
The concept emerged over 30 years ago in Massachusetts classrooms through the need for more authentic art making experiences. United through Massachusetts College of Art (MassArt), teachers working in isolation discovered others who also held belief in the child as the artist. With the support of MassArt, NAEA and The Education Alliance at Brown University, the Teaching for Artistic Behavior Partnership (TAB) was formed in 2001 and incorporated in 2007 (http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/).
           
According to Douglas (2007), students in a TAB classroom can work at their own pace, work from their strengths, follow a train of thought over time, learn from and work with peers, be “on task” for a greater portion of class time, develop a working style, explore their interests in visual form, form cooperative groups and engage in positive social interaction, and take responsibility for the care of materials and the classroom.  Teachers in a TAB classroom can observe students working to determine strengths and weaknesses, work with small groups of interested students while others work independently, allowing for more in-depth instruction, offer special “scaffolding” to struggling students, get to know students through their personal styles, expect students to come to class highly motivated and ready to work (Douglas, 2007).

There are four practices that form the structure of choice-based art education.  First, the student is the artist.  Douglas and Jaquith (2009) maintain, “This powerful statement insures that students will have control over their subject matter, materials, and approach” (p. 9).  The teacher presents a five minute demonstration of a new material, technique, or art concept at the beginning of each class, ensuring that content standards are met.  After that, students choose at which studio center they will work.
The second practice is pedagogy.  Douglas and Jaquith (2009) state,
Choice-based teaching comes in many forms: direct and indirect (through visuals and references), whole-group demonstrations and discussions, small groups with students who choose a particular exploration, and one-to-one interactions.  These multiple approaches are possible because student independence is encouraged.  Teacher roles include demonstrating, modeling, facilitating, caching, providing curriculum content, and altering that content as a result of observations made in class.  The teacher also ensures accessibility of art materials, tools, and visual references for independent learning through student-directed experiences (p. 10-11).
Because so many teaching styles are utilized, teachers are more likely to meet the needs of every student in a diverse student population. 

The third practice in choice-based art education is classroom context.  Douglas and Jaquith (2009) assert,
The ideal learning environment for student-driven artmaking requires the efficient structure of time, careful arrangement of space, and thoughtful choice of materials.  Good classroom management allows teachers to respond in a timely manner to student needs.  Predictability of studio centers is central to the effectiveness of choice-based teaching and learning, and enables students to plan ahead for their art class (p. 13).

The final practice in choice-based art education is assessment.  According to the website, teachingforartisticbehavior.org,
Assessment is ongoing and students are coached and encouraged to self-assess as they work. When students are working independently, the choice teacher is able to make general and one-on-one observations of what students know and can do. Future demonstrations and assistance are directly tied to these observations. Assessment is tailored to the specific district expectations. (http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/faqs.html, 2009).
Student-directed exhibitions are also used as a form of assessment and as a tool for learning.  Douglas and Jaquith (2009) maintain,
Students select artwork to exhibit, and their choices reflect self-evaluation of their recent work.  Empowering students to organize and direct art shows extends their knowledge to the fields of aesthetics and criticism.  As they determine which pieces to exhibit and how to arrange the exhibition, students develop skills necessary for growth in the visual arts (p. 15).

According to Greene (as cited in Burton, 2000),
Young people are too often bored in schools because we do not offer them meaningful challenges, we do not invite them to bring their own experiences in to the arena of learning, we do not ask of them the kind of reflection and exploration of possibilities that engages their thinking, and we do not offer them insights and skills in those non-verbal languages of the arts where imagination can open up new corners of reality (p. 330).
This may be the case in DBEA classrooms, but with TAB, this is not the case.  Andrews (2005) states, “Students are engaged in artmaking, art planning, and art reflection. They are the instigators of their art curriculum; not passive bodies waiting for instruction” (p.39).  Andrews (2005) further states, “This arrangement fosters greater interaction among the student artists, brings more ideas into the art room, and creates an atmosphere of enthusiasm and creativity” (p. 39)
           
DBAE has impacted art education in the United States for the last twenty-five years.  It has brought legitimacy to K-12 art education.  The art education community has improved upon DBAE over the years; however, it is still not a perfect approach to art education.  DBAE focuses too much on content and not enough on the actual students.  TAB on the other hand, is a student-centered, choice-based approach to art education.  In the TAB classroom, a variety of teaching methods are used, increasing the likelihood of reaching all students.   With TAB, students do not just learn about art, they are artists.


References
Andrews, B. H.  (2005, July).  Art, reflection, and creativity in the classroom: A student-driven
art course.  [Electronic version].  Art Education, 58(4), 35-40.
Burton, J. M.  (2000, Summer).  The configuration of meaning: Learner-centered art education
revisited.  [Electronic version].  Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 330-345.
Delacruz, E. M., & Dunn, P. C.  (1995, November).  DBAE: The next generation.  [Electronic
version].  Art Education, 48(6), 46-53.
Douglas, K.  (2007, December).  Starting with the students: Choice-based art education.  Art
Beat.  Retrieved November 1, 2009 from
http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/articles.html
Douglas, K. M., & Jaquith, D. B.  (2009).  Engaging learners through artmaking: Choice-based
art education in the classroom.  New York: Teachers College Press.
Duke, L. L.  (1988, March).  The getty center for education in the arts and discipline-based art
education.  [Electronic version].  Art Education, 41(2), 7-12.
Hamblen, K. A. (1987, Winter).  An examination of discipline-based art education issues.
[Electronic version].  Art Education, 28(2), 68-78.
Stankiewicz, M. A.  (2000, Summer).  Discipline and the future of art education.  [Electronic
version].  Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 301-313.





Notes on “10 Teaching and Learning Strategies in a ‘Choice-Based’ Art Program” by Nan Hathaway

Hathaway, N. (2008, September). 10 teaching and learning strategies in a choice-based art program. Arts & Activities. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from http://teachingforartisticbehavior.org/articles.html


“This system (a choice-based art program) honors individual learning styles and preferences, enabling children to work from their own strengths and interests and to draw on prior knowledge and experience.”

“Students may work alone or with peers, may “specialize” or may sample from a wide array of options. Students can persist with one project over many weeks, or try a variety of activities during a single class period. In this way, multiple learning styles and preferences are served.”

1. TEACHER-DELIVERED WHOLE-GROUP MINI-LESSON
“Most classes begin with a brief (five-minute) lesson—a demonstration of a new material or technique or an introduction of a new artist or style.”

“Often, original art (student or adult) is viewed and discussed, as are art reproductions or video clips.”

“Introducing topics this way assures that standards are addressed for all students.”

“Since the classroom is set up for students to access on their own, they can think about what they’d like to do ahead of time and arrive to class ready to work.”

2. TEACHER-DELIVERED SMALL GROUP LESSON
“Sometimes clusters of students have similar needs or interests, or work together on a single project, dividing and sharing the work. When this occurs, specific lessons can be designed and targeted to support this type of learning in a small group setting.”

“Organic groupings of this kind benefit students with varied abilities but similar interests; in essence, this is differentiating activities by student interest without regard to ability.”

3. TEACHER-DELIVERED INDIVIDUAL LESSON
” By noticing individual student art direction, the teacher can target lessons to support individual inquiry and pursuit. Noting and illustrating ties between student art and the art of others, across time and across cultures, the teacher can address art history and aesthetics in a way that is personally meaningful.”

4. INFORMAL PEER-TO-PEER TEACHING
“Often a student becomes an expert with a certain material or procedure and can ‘peer coach’ students with less developed skills.”

“Peer teaching also provides opportunity for classroom leadership.”

5. STUDENT “EXPERTS” TEACHING WHOLE GROUP
“Creating a ‘community of artists’ is an important goal in a choice-based art program. Recognizing what each artist has to offer the community is an important role for the teacher to embrace.”

6. CLASSROOM AS ‘SILENT LESSON PLAN/TEACHER’
“The classroom can be set up in numerous distinct ‘centers’ or ‘studios,’ each appointed with the materials and tools needed to make art. Here students can also find related references and resources (books, prints, examples of student work, etc.).”

“’Menus’ are created and displayed, describing procedures for setup and cleanup, or other essential information.”

“These centers include written information, pictographs and real art objects, all of which help get necessary information across to students with various learning predispositions.”

“Students who use and maintain learning centers feel a sense of ownership and control in the classroom.”

7. GUEST EXPERTS
“Exposure to adults passionate about their own art informs and supports the work done in the classroom, broadens horizons and presents new possibilities.”

8. FIELD TRIPS
“Planning trips to art museums, events and galleries heightens awareness and exposes students to the greater world of art.”

9. INDIVIDUAL INQUIRY
“Through individual exploration, practice, research and presentation, students may act as their own guide and teacher.”

“While exposure to a variety of options exists in a choice-based classroom, provisions are made for students to have art experiences that develop at their own pace, over time, going deep into areas of interest and gaining true proficiency with their selected medium.”

“In fact, relearning what authentic child-created art looks like is a challenge for many adults who have come to view teacher-directed art as the norm.”

10. CLASS DISCUSSION/REFLECTION
“Students are invited to talk about their work at the end of each class during an ‘artist’s share.’”

“Students are guided in providing thoughtful feedback for classmates and in ways to discuss art beyond a simple ‘show-and-tell’ format.”

“As students talk about their art, there is opportunity for the teacher to frame student work using pertinent art vocabulary and to reinforce artistic behaviors.”

SUMMARY
“In a choice-based art classroom, students are doing the authentic work of real artists every day. The focus is squarely on learning. It is acknowledged that all learners of all ages and at all levels can also take the role of teacher, and that teachers are also learners. The environment is carefully designed and appointed to facilitate diverse learners and to provide multiple entry points.”

“In this setting, individuality, flexibility, personal relevancy, independence and accountability are valued and supported.”