Observation Narrative

Michele Curiale
CT 298B – Julia Healy
Participant Observation Write UP

I’ve only been in the Art Education program at Hofstra University for about four months. That is long enough to have dipped a toe in just about all aspects of the learning process: educational psych, historical perspectives, classroom management techniques, and in the specifics of Art Ed philosophy and practice. That last category, which includes both Professor Zwirn’s course on Curriculum and Instruction as well as Professor Healy’s course on Instructional Patterns in Secondary education, came with the most reading. After weeks of grinding through the thoughts of some of the most prominent minds in our field, I was happy enough to find that I was “drinking the Kool-Aid.” I found myself underlining whole passages enthusiastically, nodding along with Burton and Eisner, occasionally talking out loud to no one as I scribbled hasty notes in the margins of the Art for Life text which, though perhaps a little too politically correct, a little too user-friendly, never failed to leave me full of hope and excitement for my eventual transformation from graduate student to a cartoon-heroine version of myself: Michele Curiale, ART TEACHER!
But as I made the final arrangements regarding my field placements for Professor Healy’s class as well as the ‘high needs’ placement for my General Methods course, I couldn’t shake a certain nagging feeling that, while being intellectually prepared for the philosophical challenges of art education (would I insist on a DBAE program that drilled my students in aesthetics? Push for the Deweyian, child-based explorations in finger-paint? Agitate through popsicle sticks and glitter glue for social justice?!), maybe I was about to get a devastating reality check inside a real life classroom.
After all, I’ve heard from just about everyone in the business (family, friends, professors, the random strangers I befriend on public transportation) that what you learn in your graduate classes is almost completely divorced from the reality of teaching. High school was not so long ago that I’ve forgot the finer details of my own art education, and to be honest with you I don’t remember my teachers doing much to agitate for social justice, defining aestheticism, or pushing any kind of serious expressive agenda with their budding Van Goghs. I do remember a constant war of classroom management, the exact same quiz about the principles and elements of art given at the start of every course I took from 8th through 12th grade, and the kid who nearly took off his thumb using the paper cutter.
I picked a start date with Mr. Yee, the Art Chairperson, at Elmont Memorial high school (from my own long-ago district), and steeled myself for what seemed like an inevitable shock. What I encountered in the classroom confirmed a lot of my suspicions. Most classes were structured around a Modernist/Formal scope and sequence, particularly the 8th grade and lower-level studio classes. Even in the advanced and AP courses, many assignments stressed skill and technique over content or expression, usually resulting in whole walls of identical student work. Classes at all levels (from required courses with an unwilling student population to AP electives hosting the self-described “art obsessed”) were unruly and scattered; on average, it took five or ten minutes before the classes were settled enough to begin work, and another ten minutes to break down and clean up, which left only twenty minutes for art making (unless a topic or technique was being introduced; then it was more like 12 minutes). Students were rarely asked to complete work outside of class, and projects were either turned in late or finished on time with the minimum effort required to meet teacher demands. Most disheartening were the conversations with students in nearly every class who insisted they “hated” art.
These issues were present in each school I visited (I also had observation hours in several ‘high needs’ locations: Westbury High School, Westbury Middle School, and Uniondale High School). It seems that the challenges of controlling the classroom left teachers without the time or energy to explore the greater nuances of their subject; several were visibly ‘over’ their jobs as educators and had switched their focus from teaching to damage control, often complaining loudly to me and demanding that I face the “reality” of my career choice. This, obviously, was terrifying.
But, being a cheerful and optimistic sort (and buoyed by the success stories of individuals like Mrs. C), I studied the different classrooms and teachers carefully for subtleties that might explain why certain groups (like Westbury High School, or Mr. Yee and Ms. Nolan’s classes at Elmont Memorial) seemed to have better attitudes and more success on several levels than the other groups observed. In the limited time I spent in the schools, I did notice several trends.
Firstly, YES, there is a big difference between the idealism of much of the course work at Hofstra and the realities of teaching in most public schools. With limited funds, time, and administrative support, and the pressure to supply a steady stream of ‘beautiful’ artwork for parents and higher ups, teachers face a series of compromises in the kind of art they can teach. There have to comply with state standards and marking period deadlines, and make the best of limited interests/attention spans of the students; even so, most teachers are doing their very best to put across a love of art, learning, and personal exploration in a way that helps everyone involved be successful. The picture painted in Art for Life, that of the multicultural, feminist, social justice curriculum- is definitely NOT what the majority of students are getting in the schools.
But the teachers are trying. I observed many lessons that used African American, Native American, and even Nigerian art and artists as inspiration or jumping off points. I spotted a few women artists outside of Mary Cassatt being introduced as well. Several projects dealt with social-justice themes of the students’ choice (LGTBQ, Safe Sex, Child Abuse), while others celebrated the diversity within the student body. Many lessons strove to reach the students within their own lives and experiences, often focusing on contemporary technology and visual culture- graffiti art, hip hop culture, and sneaker and t-shirt design were used in conjunction with more traditional ‘fine art’ techniques as well as digital photography and graphic design. Students were encouraged to take advantage of new smart-phone technology in completing assignments, photographing and capturing their world, even for oh the spot research and photo references (at this point, I believe it’s a “if you can’t beat them, joint them” approach to the personal electronics policy).
I saw a large correlation between the teacher’s ability to connect with the students and control the classroom, and the quality of art instruction. Mr. Yee, with over 15 years of experience, was really masterful in his interactions with the students and provided interesting and engaging lessons at all levels of instruction. He had excellent lesson plans (of the ‘realistic’ version you would normally see used in schools, succinct and flexible rather than the lengthy model we turn in for our graduate classes) that placed the emphasis on behavioral objectives as well as problem solving/expressive outcomes. He stuck closely to his lesson plans when working with his 8th graders and the lower level studio courses, but allowed more flexibility with more mature groups and the AP courses. At all levels and regardless of the general classroom attitude, he kept his students moving through the material during introductory session and on task during work periods. He made sure to ask questions of the entire group to encourage participation and see that the information was absorbed. He handled outbursts and behavioral issues without resorting to screaming or threats, often defusing a situation with a sharp look or physical proximity. When the occasion called for greater intervention, he generally warned his student of the consequences of their behavior and made a statement about ‘knowing they were capable of much more.’ He treated the students like grown ups and held them accountable for their actions, which they seemed respect and appreciate.
Since he didn’t need to spend much time on classroom management, Mr. Yee was able to introduce more challenging topics and techniques, and his students generally worked at a higher level of artistic competence (both in terms of skill and creativity). He gave them a good amount of artistic freedom in terms of how they treated their assignments, so long as they accomplished certain requirements. Because the students had grown used to working somewhat independently (more so in AP courses structured around Breadth and Concentrations), he had the freedom to mentor individuals and provide honest constructive criticism (never sugar coated or mean spirited), always encouraging them to do better then their best.
Ms. Yoda, on the other hand, struggled to maintain control of her classroom, both with younger students and more advanced groups. She had a less authoritative manner and often resorted to whining at her students (which both I and her classes found extremely grating). The progress of the lesson often stalled as she pleaded for quiet and order, which was frustrating for her and the students who were interested/engaged in the lesson. Students didn’t work on task, had many late projects and/or failing grades for the quarter, and often stated ‘I hate Art’ when asked. The lessons themselves were dull and ‘cookie cutter,’ usually involving ‘gridding up’ a smaller photo reference chosen from a pile of lookalikes that Ms. Yoda provided (she said this was because the students never remembered to bring in their own references). The students seemed bored and frustrated by the process, complained constantly, and were not in any way invested in the results of their work. It seems like a chicken-and-egg scenario in many ways: did the students’ bad attitudes result from the crummy lessons? Or did Ms. Yoda resort to crummy lesson plans because of the students’ unwillingness to participate?
My field hours have cleared up a lot of questions and doubts I had about the realities of teaching in the public school system. Teaching art needs to be about teaching as much as it is about art, about the relationship you build with your students and having confidence in your ability to educate and lead them. I will probably never have the opportunity to teach in a tabula rasa setting, to impart my particular art philosophy from the ground up, but having a rich understanding of the many perspectives and positions on art education will allow me to successfully teach the issues and concepts which I feel are important. I will be constrained by budgets, the administration, and the meager 44 minutes of a class period- but beyond the gritty realities of teachings are those perfect elements of interaction with the students, building a bond with your classes, and being able to share that which I am most passionate about with them. I can’t wait to get started.