Data Collection in the Gallery

This past Friday I embarked upon my first data collection adventure at the Corcoran. As we had decided that personal interviews would be the best way to collect data, focusing on three questions, I printed out many copies of question sheets and headed up to the American Evolution show. My question sheet consisted of the following: 1) What was the most important factor in your choice to visit the Corcoran today? 2) Were there any other factors that influenced your choice? 3) Did any of the following influence your choice: Expense? Geographical location? Reputation of the Corcoran? Content or reviews of the current exhibit (American Evolution)?

When I reached the second floor, where the A.E. show is, I did a quick walk-through to get a feel for how many people were in the galleries. There were some scattered here and there–not too busy. I quickly realized that I did not feel comfortable approaching visitors while they were immersed in the show, looking at the artwork. They all seemed preoccupied with their looking and/or discussing, and it felt rude/wrong to interrupt them with my questions. So, I assumed a post at the top of the stairs in the central atrium, more specifically just outside the exit door of the last gallery. Having never done research like this in a gallery, I felt a certain level of discomfort that I had not anticipated. It was not until I was actually in the gallery, faced with the very real situation of approaching visitors that I felt this nervousness. That said, I found myself unable to even approach the first couple that exited the galleries. I let them walk right by me, needing another minute to adjust to the setting and task.

One this first couple passed, I began my questioning. Right away, I began to notice several things about the process:

I had to think carefully about how to approach people, what to say that would make them willing to listen to me and answer my questions.

I noticed almost immediately that it was helpful to ask them to answer a few QUICK questions. Most people seemed reluctant to committ to anything that would not be quick. (Maybe this was one downside of standing at the exit, when people were done with the show.)

Asking the visitors if they had been to the Corcoran before seemed like a more natural way to open up/begin the questioning, because many of the answers to the first question related to this fact. After the first few people, I began to ask everyone this question and record their answer.

I quickly realized that in our third question, the “expense” factor seemed irrelevant. I don’t think it is the correct way to get at what we are trying to–information about how the price of Corcoran tickets affects visitors. I realized that if the visitors were at the Corcoran, they had already proven that price/expense was not a factor for them. It did not deter them from visiting obviously. I know we had discussed this at some point, but ultimately decided to include it. After doing the actual data collection, this seems irrelevant to me.

Some of the visitors, (because they saw me standing there or not, i don’t know) made such a quick turn and exit down the stairs that I could not even approach them. This cut down a little bit on the number of visitors I could question.

Another tactical issue was that a few times, a larger group of people would exit at the same time, causing me to miss out on several visitors, as I could only question one or one couple at a time. This posed a bit of a problem because there was not a steady stream of visitors exiting the show. In two hours, I was only able to interview 12 people/couples. This also brought up the issue of, how do we differentiate between individuals and couples who are clearly visiting together and have the same answers to my questions? Is this an issue at all? Should we just consider these couples as one, or are their answers marked as two responses?

After my data collection, I began to think that the questions we are asking are just not that interesting, or not going to reveal the type of information we are looking for. As I talked with the visitors, I also began to think that maybe questions regarding the show, and their expectations of it, impressions of it, would be more interesting to research. It might be more difficult to quantify the info we get, but it would definitely lead to more fruitful answers from the visitors. Should we think about changing our topic like this? or is it too late?

How are schools funded?

Local property tax funding of education gives all of a community’s residents, not only the parents of school-aged children, an incentive to monitor the local public schools and see that they provide a good education. Homeowners in districts with successful schools are rewarded with rising property values, whereas residents in districts with unsuccessful schools experience falling property values.

Each resident has an individual incentive to either support the status quo if it is producing good results, or work for change if it is not. Local property tax funding thus gives school personnel an incentive to provide high quality and efficient schools. School districts also must compete with one another or risk losing students, as well as tax dollars, to better-performing districts. (Written By: Caroline M. Hoxby Ph.D., found on http://www.heartland.org )

In searching for answers to the question of how are schools funded, the above quotation/information is one of the first things I came across. Initially, it clarified the fact that most schools are funded from the local property taxes, but then I began to wonder, if the author presents this idea as such a logical concept, why are there always so many people, who do not have children in the local school system, that are unwilling to pay school taxes, or high school taxes. Is it just that people don’t really see a high correlation between their local school systems and their property values? or what about the population of people in a certain town that are not property owners? Even if they do not have to pay property taxes, don’t they sometimes have a vote in education-related issues?

In trying to figure out if property tax based funding is the norm for all schools in our country, I came across a brief history of funding, including this interesting piece, “In a landmark ruling on San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, issued in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court denied this contention. By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require equal funding among school districts.” (http://www.dekalbcounty-il.com/propertyvsincome.htm)

While this is probably widely known by many, I didn’t know specifically about this court ruling regarding the equity of our educational system. I find it rather disturbing. As I read more, I found that equity among school systems, both within a state and from one state to another, is not a given. While this is something that is very apparent in our countries myriad schools, it is another thing to actually read the words and realize the no one is claiming that our country offers equality of education. I am curious, what are others thoughts on this matter? Do you think everyone deserves an equal education? Is it unrealistic to strive for such a thing?

Here is an interesting link I found that contains information on school systems state by state, including finance info among other things. I couldn’t possibly explore the whole site, but I did find some good resources. It has historical information as well as current news and issues relating to education, finance, reform, etc.

Another thing I have been thinking about as I consider school funding is the variance that exists between public, private, and charter schools. In a way, it is easier for me to understand public vs. private schools and their funding, but when it comes to charter schools, the lines around funding seem to get very blurry. Are charter schools gov’t funded, yet also allowed to accept private support? If so, this doesn’t really seem fair to me. If this is the case, it seems to put public schools at such a disadvantage. I did read about funding for charter schools, but did not find anything about rules regarding private funding for public schools. Any ideas on this matter?

Audience research: narrowing down the questions…

Well, I posted a lot about this last week, so now I think it is time to address exactly what our overarching “big” question is, and then determine the many questions that might come out of that. It looks like Katherine is thinking, ““What factors influenced your choice to come to the Corcoran today?” I think this gets at what we have been discussing, but I only worry that it is too open-ended to produce any solid results. Or, on the other hand, maybe is works well as our bigger question and we can get at details with smaller questions that relate to it. I think Farolyn is working on another question/topic now, so maybe we don’t even want to worry about the demographics that we were initially considering. Ultimately, we have narrowed down on seeking answers to why visitors chose to come to the Corcoran over all the other (free and more well-known) options in the city.

I still believe a questionnaire is the best format for us to work with. It could contain the questions, Have you been to the Corcoran before? Are you a member? How did you first learn of the Corcoran? Are you from DC area? If not, how did you hear about the Corcoran? Did you see advertisements for the American Evolution show? Did you know there was an admission price? and, (getting at Katherine’s earlier interests), Were you satisfied with the show? I am curious if anyone thinks putting these types of questions, and about this many of them, on a questionnaire is too much to throw at visitors? Are they likely to fill it out? Also, is it best to hand it out as people enter the show, throughout the show, or as they exit? My initial feeling is at the beginning so they have time to walk around, and fill it out at their leisure (before they leave). But with the expectation question, if we include it, we should probably aim for visitors exiting the show.

I think this type of research will lead us to learning a lot about questions, what type is best to ask, yields better results/answers, and how to phrase things.

American Evolution audience research…

After narrowing down our initial list of possible questions that could relate to the Corcoran and the American Evolution show, Katherine, Farolyn, and I each have specific interests that we will attempt to bring together.

Katherine has already given a summary of what we are interested in.  I think the point we are at is really deciding how we can blend the three interests and what questions specifically we will ask and how.  The demographic information and info about why they decided to visit the Corcoran could probably be collected best with a questionnaire handed out as people enter the show.  The information relating to visitor expectations (that Katherine is interested in) could be collected through an exit questionnaire.  The tricky part is, are people who are handed a form when they enter the show likely to A.)fill out that form B.) fill out that form and welcome another form as they leave the show?  Maybe it would be best to target the two different sets of info with different groups of visitors so they are not being bombarded with questionnaires that they are then unlikely to fill out.  Does this dividing of the audience pose a problem to our research validity?  I’m not sure about that.

In terms of what questions we should consider around our research, I think we would have to try and dig up any past similar studies the Corcoran may have.  Also, we would want to do a survey of other current DC museum offerings, specifically museums that we might expect to have a similar demographic as the Corcoran, such as the Phillips.  In laying out everything else that is available to visitors, we are creating a knowledge base about possible reasons that might either keep visitors away from the Corcoran show or gaps that might drive them to us.  In addition, I would want to find out all the methods the Corcoran used to promote the Amer. Evolution show.  Where did they buy ads?  What programs did they promote in relation to the show?

I am still undecided as to whether it would be better to provide a list of possible answers on our questionnaires or to leave the answers open.  I think choices might encourage slightly more responses, but I don’t want it to infringe on the data either.  Demographic info should be fairly straightforward for visitors to answer on their own, but what about how they heard of the Corcoran or why they chose to visit?  How do you think people would respond to answering such a question on their own?  The same is true for asking visitors if the show met their expectations.  Would it be most practical to offer a set of answers to choose from, such as: yes, met expectations; no, did not meet expectations; exceeded expectations.  I think this would be taking away from the meat of what we are trying to get at.  Any suggestions?

To Be and To Have…thoughts

    While I really enjoyed watching “To Be and To Have” in class last week, it was also one of those movie’s that grew on me more as I thought about it afterwards.  What I started to think about more after the fact was the way the cinematography did not intrude on the characters or the story at all.  Even though the film was a documentary, it didn’t feel like the usual documenatary.  The absence of a narrative voice, side commentaries from the characters in which they reflect on their actions, and an obvious camera presence all seemed to contribute to the intimate connection the viewer is allowed to feel to the classroom.  To use a word I dislike and hardly ever use…it felt “authentic.”

In this authenticity, there is also a sense that the director/producer is not trying to portray anything negative or to look down on this tiny school house in rural France.  I like this aspect of revealing the school as it is, revealing the students for who they are, and the teacher, Msr. Lopez, for exactly who he is.  While we must assume a certain viewpoint and editing of footage, there is no sense of dramatization or misrepresentation through the camera lens.  If anything, this one room schoolhouse is given a sort of warm glow through this documentary.  It is such an intimate portrayal that I was left feeling like I wanted to be a part of this small learning community, who commuted together, learned together, played and fought together.  It is such a distinctly different learning environment than we are used to seeing/experiencing here in the U.S., that I can see how American viewers might at first look down on this different type of education.  By the end of the movie, however, I would find it hard to believe anyone would feel negatively about the teaching and learning that occurs.

While the scenery rarely strayed from the small classroom, and the pace of the movie is slow, it is not a slow that caused boredom (at least not for me).  The characters, even if they were 5 years old, were developed enough to create genuine viewer interest, and the soft-spoken tone of Msr. Lopez’ voice seemed to move everything along continuously.  The focus on one-on-one interactions also seemed to dominated the movie.  We continuously see Msr. Lopez in discussion with specific students, whether in the classroom, on the playground, or even on a field trip.  I think these intimate conversations add greatly to the overall feeling of intimacy in the movie as well as help maintain flow and interest.

Msr. Lopez becomes a sort of hero in this film.  He is a teacher that is wholly dedicated to his job and his students, and in turn, these students obviously have a great deal of respect for him.  As a future educator, my biggest question was how he initially gained this respect?  It is hard not to think a lot of it has to do with his personality and his close relationship with the children.  He made it look easy to manage that schoolroom, but I am fascinated when I think about how hard it really could be.  The challenge of managing different ages and therefore levels of learners is huge in itself.  I wonder if his age and gender had much to do with the way he conducted himself and the respect his students had for him?  Was he always such a calm, nurturing teacher, or was this somthing he himself learned over years of teaching?  I sometimes worry that I will find myself in a classroom and feel like I don’t have the right personality to manage it.  Then I also think that, well, maybe this is something I will develop over time, my classroom personality.  As much as I think it through, I feel I will learn so much once I step into my first real classroom and begin dealing firsthand with the real issues I will encounter.  In this sense, I see where the importance of determining our personal teaching philosophies will be useful.  It will be important to figure out personal biases, strengths, weaknesses, and limitations before we enter an environment that will challenge them.

Critique

    In thinking about Critique in the classroom, I realized I don’t have any experience leading a critique as the educator, but only my experience participating in critique as a student.  This lead me to think about the variety of experiences I have had over the past years, and, as I just responded to Moana, I also believe the good and bad experiences are equally as valuable to me at this point.

Overall, I remember my most positive critique experiences to be the ones in which myself and other students could share constructive criticism and observations of each other’s work, in an environment in which we were not worried about what we said or being too critical.  In these classrooms, the goal of critique seemed to be both appreciation of the work we had done by our classmates and maybe our teacher, as well as critical viewing and suggestions for how we could push our work further.  While I don’t remember explicitly being told how the critique should occur, I’m sure I was given some general guidelines at one point early in college.  In researching critique online, I came across the website of Marvin Bartel, (a veteran art educator) who has written about critique, provided a Student Critique form that can be printed and used, and also provided many other links to topics related to art education.

As I read over this Marvin’s student critique form, I decided I liked the idea of a form to help students organize their thoughts during critique.  As a student, I had never used a physical form like this in my classes, but I could see it being very useful, especially with high school students, an audience that would likely use critique in class, but also that would be fairly new to it.  What I liked best about Marvin’s form was that it stresses what the student sees, not what they like or dislike etc.   For students who are new to the process of critque, I think it would work well to hand out these sheets ( or something similar) and give them about 5 minutes to look at the artwork in question and fill them out.  It would be a way for them to have notes for discussion, and also could provide some written documentation of peer observations for the student artist whose work is the subject.  I am curious to hear what others think about using a form like this in critique.   Do you think it would be useful for students or just get in the way of discussion?  Would you only use it with a certain age group?

Marvin Bartel also has a page on “Successful Art Class Critique” which has some interesting ideas.   Overall, his ideas are helpful to me, especially since they address holding a critique directly from the educator’s point of view.  He details exactly what he does in critique, including using his form.  One thing I questioned was when he says he tells students to remember, “ The Platinum rule is: ‘Try to write what you think that person wants to hear‘.  The Golden rule would be nearly as good, ‘What you would like to hear.’ “  I don’t understand why you would want your students only to say/write what others want to hear.  That may be very encouraging, but how would we ever progress?  I am kind of hoping that I am misunderstanding Marvin a bit, because I like his other ideas.  For example, in the next sentence, he says, “ I ask students to avoid all judgmental comments.  I stress description, analysis, and interpretation.  These are comments that say what we see, why it makes an impression, and what it might mean or how it makes the viewer feel. No one is say, “I like . . .”  or,  “I don’t like . . . “  I ask them to simply say, “The first thing I see is . . . “  “This ____ stands out for me because of the . . . . (size, color, brightness, placement, subject, etc.) contrast.”   I think this is great critique form to stress with students.  For many students, I imagine it is hard or unnatural for them to refrain from value judgements.

I think successful critiques can lead to constructive criticism on student work, valuable peer evaluation, and eventually, a mindset better trained to view art in general.  If students get used to viewing art and thinking and talking about what they see instead of what they simply like and don’t like, they can apply this to all art they encounter.

article link

On a side note, I read an article in the Washington Post Magazine this weekend that some of you might be interested in. It was written by a high school English teacher from Thomas Jefferson HS in VA. It is really about his quest for National Board Certification, but also includes a lot of his thoughts on assessment, specifically assessing and documenting “real understanding” among his students.

GRADING (assessment special blog)

As I began to think more specifically about grading, I recalled our discussion in class last week about pre-assessment and post-assessment.  In the future art class I imagine teaching, I think pre-assessment would be an essential element in the grading process.  While I can see pre-assessment being fairly informal, I do think it is important to determine each student’s artistic ability and history as best one can at the beginning of a class/semester etc.  In reality, this could happen through sitting down for five minutes with each student, discussing past work, and viewing a few examples if they were available.  Obviously, a focused pre-assessment like this would also depend on the grade level/student audience one is teaching.  I don’t see it being as important with younger students, below middle school, for example.  I also think pre-assessment could become more useful the older and more mature students become.  The older a student is, the more chance there may be for varying artistic backgrounds and experience within a class population.
This idea of pre-assessment precludes a grading philosophy that is based not just on final product, but on progress and improvement over the course of time.  While I think pre-assessment of a student’s level would be valuable to a teacher in general, it could be used to form a concrete course grade based on several factors, specifically including student growth.   Obtaining some knowledge of a student’s ability and past work would also help a teacher form a better idea of how much effort was put forth by the student.  While effort level can also be determined from a teacher’s observation of class work, attendance, and class participation, possessing at least an informal idea of where individual students is valuable information.
All this talk of pre-assessment leads to the idea that I am much more comfortable giving a grade in art class if I know how far a student has progressed.  I would make it clear to students at the beginning of a class that the final grade would not be solely a reflection of a final project/work, but rather a combination of different elements such as effort, craft, thoughtful reflection and response.  As a teacher, I think the things I would be most concerned about achieving in the art room would be related to student growth, creative problem solving, and critical thinking.  A final product will not necessarily be a good indicator of a grade in these areas.  I would try to incorporate my own pre-assessment of student ability/history, as well as have students complete written work at the beginning and end of a project, as appropriate.  I think students should learn to write about art and what they are trying to communicate/achieve with their pieces.  While these written pieces can be short, they should provide a tool to assess both student progress and student understanding.  I would also use critique to assess and help formulate grades, though I also think it is extremely important to always have a clear rubric to accompany a critique that leads to a grade.  If student’s are presenting their work to their teacher and classmates in critique, comments should clearly reflect how a piece was or was not successful in terms of rubric criteria.  I believe this puts a more even responsibility on the student to earn his/her grade rather than to feel like a teacher is the ultimate, subjective decisive power in grading.  In the art class, where questions of subjectivity always have the potential for blurriness, I think clarity from the teacher on what s/he is expecting can help eliminate feelings of unfairness.
I am curious as to what others think about using the student progress or growth factor as part of a final grade.  Do you think this is fair, as it would place less emphasis on final product?  Do you envision is at being too hard to carry out and/or justify to curious students/parents?

“Authentic” Assessments…

After reading UbD and the assessment article online, I am most interested to talk about authentic performance tasks.  While everything I have read so far this semester on assessment has stressed the importance of these “authentic” tasks which ask students to relate learned material back to real-world situations/applications, I cannot recall many wonderful authentic tasks in my past education (pre-college).  I am particularly interested in this topic because I often feel that schools do not do enough in the way of preparing students for the “real world.”  For example, I graduated high school, having taken math through AP calculus, yet don’t believe we were ever asked to apply math to situations we might encounter in our future (credit cards, loans, mortgages etc.)  While this might seem basic and obvious, I think it would benefit the majority of students to have practice and instruction in such realistic applications.  How many students get to college and start racking up bills on credit cards, not fully realizing the consequences of their spending and high APR’s?

I am also interested in authentic assessment because it seems like an aspect of assessment that may at first seem easy to incorporate or design, but upon closer examination, I believe true authentic assessment that shows deep understanding and application is more difficult to create.   I am thinking of assessments that may at first sound good and appealing, but do not really test much depth of knowledge and understanding.  This is similar to the example cited in ch. 8 of UbD, when the teacher is asked to self-assess her civil war task for validity.

In specifically thinking about the art classroom, I think authentic tasks would certainly be easier in some mediums than others.  I initially think about digital media and art and the myriad authentic tasks that could branch from that field, as it is can be closely related with design.  As I think about painting, printmaking, or ceramics, it becomes somewhat harder to think of authentic tasks that are directly related to how a student might apply these to real-world situations.  In terms of yielding data that you need, authentic tasks in the art class would still have to be accompanied by specific rubrics and clearly explained so that students know what is expected of them.

I am curious to hear other ideas about authentic tasks specifically in the context of the art class.  Do these types of tasks have equal importance here as in other subject matter, more, less?  Would creating and assigning authentic tasks take anything away from certain art lessons?

Student vs. Teacher-Centered: the big debate

The main article for this week focused on the difference between teacher and student centered education philosophies and really helped to clarify the two for me.  In an effort to try and prove how the progressive/contstructivist (student-centered) philosophy that dominates schools of education does a poor job of equipping future teachers, author George Cunningham manages to paint a clear picture of both cultures.  There is much discussion about the downfalls of a student-centered classroom, with particular emphasis on how poorly reading and math skills are affected.  While I appreciate Cunningham’s thorough examples that helped me to understand different teaching approaches to both reading and math, I was left wondering about the implications of a student vs. teacher-centered philosophy in the art classroom.  The other main question that kept returning to me during this article was:  Do certain students learn better in a teacher-centered class while others, in turn, function better in a student-centered classroom?  My instinct is to immediately say yes, among the range of learners in this world, there are certainly some who would function and perform better in one type of learning environment over the other.  I am interested to know what you all think about being able to group learners into either category??  While there is an obvious debate over student or teacher centered philosophies and which is better, I have not yet heard talk of accepting a mixture of the two.  Is it simply not feasible to blend the two in the classroom?  It doesn’t seem like a novel idea to me, so I am interested to hear more from actual teachers who are implementing a student-centered classroom and how it is working.
In one of the shorter articles from this week, a chemistry professor writes about changing over to a more student-centered teaching method and specifically, suggests how to incorporate this method gradually.  This leads me to believe that many teachers out there are indeed using some kind of blend of these two education approaches.  I would love to observe a classroom that is truly student-centered and see how I feel about the approach after witnessing it in action.
At this point, I realize I have completely digressed from what we are really supposed to be addressing in response to this article.  Regarding Cunningham’s main points, I disagree.  I do not believe that the progressive/constructivist viewpoint of the majority of education schools is the wrong theory to promote and teach.  While I found his arguments about the documented progress (or lack of progress) in the subjects of reading and math to be particularly thought provoking, I was not wholly convinced that education schools are in the wrong in promoting a student-centered approach, as he repeatedly declares.  While I feel unqualified to comment much on the teaching of reading or math, I think I might feel uncomfortable for example, teaching the approach Cunningham describes in place of long division.  Again, I find myself wondering why a blend of two approached cannot be used here.  Why not teach traditional long division, while also incorporating more applicable “authentic” problems for students to solve.  Apparently, in the debate over teacher vs. student-centered education, one should choose one side or the other.  Cunningham makes it clear he is against the “radical constructivism” of most education schools.  I have to admit, I was somewhat disturbed to read several of his recurring comments that degrade education schools for promoting “critical” and “reflective, democratic teaching”.  He seems to hold student achievement so high that he denounces what I felt was one of the most important things I learned before graduating from high school—how to think critically about information we receive.
I found his extreme criticism of the theories promoted in education schools very problematic.  While Cunningham alludes to his disdain for such theory throughout his article, it became almost comical when he launches into his criticism of the classes at UNC-Greensboro.  After describing some of their courses on critical pedagogy, all I could think was that I wanted to take something like that!  In disagreement with Cunningham’s view, I would ask him for what purpose is higher education, if not to challenge our minds with such ideas as described in the UNC-G Critical Pedagogy course (education and power, crisis of democratic culture etc.)  While these ideas may not be DIRECTLY applicable in the classroom, as he states, they are important issues for future teachers to explore as elements of our larger national education system.  I agree that education students need practical experience and teaching as well, but why isn’t a melding of the two acceptable or even most desirable?  To me, it is.  If we had education schools that adopted strict teacher-centered pedagogy, as Cunningham suggests, we would be giving future teachers prescriptive plans for the classroom, effectively crushing all opportunity for creative, unique, and dynamic teaching.  This is not the teaching environment that I want to inhabit, and I hope most students of education value their future professions enough to disagree with many of Cunningham’s ideas as well.