I chose to research the topic of Arts-Based Education and the Curriculum for my third ECS 203 blog post. For this blog post, I chose to focus on the scholarly journal article, “A Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Research and Implications for Education” by James Haywood Rolling Jr.

James Haywood Rolling Jr. described Arts Based Research as “characteristically emergent, imagined, and derivative from an artist/researcher’s practice or arts praxis inquiry models; [it is] capable of yielding outcomes taking researchers in directions the sciences cannot go” (James Haywood Rolling Jr. 110). I thought this was an interesting description, as it shows that the more ‘well known’ methods of learning, such as schools focusing on maths and sciences out of a textbook, are missing a key quality of learning, which is the arts.

Another quote in the article that I found interesting was, “the potential of arts-based learning engagements is wasted conveying facts, dates, and figures about dead artists, historical movements, and aesthetic styles” (James Haywood Rolling Jr. 111). This quote implies that although arts education is incorporated in schools, it still results in regurgitating information similar to a math or science class in which one sits down and memorizes information from a textbook, and this method doesn’t put the potential for arts education where it could be. Arts education should be more visual, and based upon learning in that sense.

Some next steps I could take for my first assignment would be researching more journal articles. I am quite intrigued by the idea of arts education, and I could gather some more information on the subject, as well as focus on other areas of the arts.

Works Cited

James Haywood Rolling Jr. (2010) A Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Research and Implications for Education, Studies in Art Education, 51:2, 102-114, DOI: 10.1080/00393541.2010.11518795 

Many people may be familiar with what a ‘curriculum’ is in terms of schooling. However, when one studies the meaning behind what a curriculum really entails, they can find that curriculums are very future based, and limiting. They see students with specific goals, and these one-size-fits-all results are seen as necessary for the student to succeed. 

The article, ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ by Smith, M. K., outlines the problems with certain viewpoints regarding curriculum as a product. The quote, “Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the students’ pattern of behaviour[…]” (Tyler 1949: 44) (Smith, M. K.) raises a few questions. This way of thinking implies that students must work towards specific goals already outlined for them in a curriculum. The focus isn’t on the students’ learning, the methods in which they are taught, or the smaller goals they’ve achieved. In this viewpoint, the main point is that the students achieved a specific behavioural goal. 

This type of viewpoint can create some impossible scenarios for students. It can eliminate some ‘different’ methods of teaching that adhere less to specific objectives, such as creating smaller goals for students. Not everyone is skilled in the same areas, so it can be difficult to use the same criteria for students who are at very different places in their learning.

However, this viewpoint of educating can also create some possible scenarios for students. With objective-based learning, students can work towards their goals. For students who learn well with this type of approach, they can better themselves and become accomplished based upon the criteria they are given. 

An example of this type of viewpoint from my own schooling I thought of, is gym class in my high school grades. I remember the fitness test, in which students were required to run a certain distance in a certain amount of time, as well as other fitness activities. The main point was the end goal – if students took the correct amount of time. Some students may have found this goal to be difficult, and it may have been helpful to work towards a smaller, achievable goal that worked for them individually.

Works Cited

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

When Kumashiro talks about ‘common sense’, they refer to the ‘norm’ that people are accustomed to in daily life. This can be in the classroom, or just in general. One finds themselves almost stuck in tradition, or what something has always been. Kumashiro mentions being told they couldn’t cook, because they didn’t add Nepali traditional ingredients to their meal. This was considered the ‘common sense’ of the area they were in.

This ‘common sense’ also led into Kumashiro’s teaching life. They mention how they would’ve liked to put students in groups with mixed genders, however the ‘common sense’ of the school was to have males and females separated. This is just one example of how traditional methods can put a stop to progressive education. Kumashiro also mentions a need for anti-oppressive education. 

Anti-oppressive education is important so students understand each other, and don’t hold harmful views on those who are seen as ‘different’. It’s important to incorporate others’ views on life, so the classroom can be a diverse and safe place for everyone, regardless of what may make them ‘different’ based upon traditional norms.

It’s important to pay attention to these ‘common sense’ norms, because these traditional values may not work for everyone, however, it’s what individuals become used to. This idea of ‘common sense’ creates a very limiting environment for students and teachers, as it eliminates ideas outside of the norm of tradition. In example, teaching classes by pen and paper might not work for students who prefer other methods of learning, but the pen and paper approach is seen as ‘common sense’ in a classroom.

The ‘common sense’ understandings of pedagogy I bring into this course, are the traditional methods of teaching I’ve been used to seeing. In some ways, ‘common sense’ methods of teaching are very one size fits all. These methods may work for some students, but not all. It’s only fair to students that we progress and teach in ways that every student can understand. Learning should be fit for individuals, and what works best for them. Common sense is not always the best method. 

Works Cited

Kumashiro. Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice. 2009. PDF.