Eisenhauer, J. (2007). Just Looking and Staring Back: Challenging Ableism through Disability Performance Art. Studies in Art Education, 49(1), 7-22.
In this article, Eisenhauer (2007) advocates for “art curriculum be guided by the goals [to] challenge the discrimination, stigmatization, marginalization, and medicalization of disabled people” (para.1). The author includes the perspectives of various disability artists and their works’ “cultural contribution ... rather than an orientation that focusses upon individual functional limitations” (Eisenhauer, 2007, para.1). The author’s research is illuminating, allowing educators both in the Visual Arts and Performance realm to reexamine how “sociopolitical orientation …frames disability as the result of human-made environments” (para.4). Which, ultimately allows an educator to examine “such environments …defined by programs, policies curricula, architectural plans, and other assorted practices” (Eisenhauer, 2007, para 4). Teaching an art form that relies heavily on visual observation of repertoire, paying intricate attention to the body to learn a choreography; this reading pushed me to reexamine the act of “seeing.” For instance, the author’s references from a series of disability artists’ experiences with the public provided me as a dance instructor with profound insight into the “violent act of seeing. Where the mere act of looking, an act that can be the gentlest, least invasive way to make contact with the world [can] become so forceful it turns a human being into a naked …example of a medical condition” (Eisenhauer, 2007, para.17). This particular reflection of feelings of dehumanization provided me to understand disability and, with the assistance of the Disability Arts Movement, “challenge the mechanism of looking, though a critical appreciation of the stare” (Eisenhauer, 2007, para.19). The author’s research allowed me to review my current curriculum. Prompting an in-depth examination of the selection of artists (dancers & choreographers) and be guided with a much more “affirmative model of disability in [my studio classes] …extending the important recognition of the sociopolitical construction of disability emphasizing that disability be conceived as a culture rather than a personal limitation” (Eisenhauer, 2007, para.47). This reading more profoundly provided me to raise questions on how many disability artists I have included in my curriculum over the years. How, I can make more inclusion and, more importantly, “critically engage students in an important process of reflecting upon their own and others’ preexisting understanding of disability” (para.49) through activities such as within dialogue of choreographic review and critique. (Eisenhauer, 2007).
Madeja, S. (2013). “The status of assessment in the visual arts in the United States” In Andrea Karpati and Emil Gaul (Eds.), From Child Art to Visual Language, Chicago: Il: Intellect, 3-32
Predominantly addressed for art educators in traditional academia, Madeja (2013) provides an overview of “the history of assessment in art education in the United States, intended to improve assessment in art education through a rigorous review of current practices” (p.5). Though the authors’ research allows educators specifically within traditional academic settings to question their assessment strategies, to provide accountability for education to support arts funding, the demand for accountability applies to studio instruction. For instance, the author delivers a detailed overview of standards from The National Art Education Association which “define[s] outcomes for art programs” (Madeja, 2013, p.7). This specific overview allowed me as a studio instructor to reflect in the manner private institution such as studios hold the accountability of their students’ learning and progress. Since, funding for the run of the institution comes directly from parent tuition. For instance, the author references the beneficial use of portfolios as a means to asses student growth, offering the perspective of how it can be a “standardized manner to gain a comprehensive view of student’s capabilities and achievements” (Madeja, 2013, p.20). The information within Madeja’s research challenged how I may properly asses my students’ growth in a studio held environment. Specifically, by reviewing my studio’s standards of instruction taken from the Vaganova method of balletic education that state the set of criteria a student should perform according to level and age. The information this reading offered provided me a new perspective on how I may record class progress and create assessment strategies through a catalog of video footage detailing students’ progress to asses physical comprehension of terminology acquisition and movement execution. A studio ballet classes form, for example, of “electronic portfolios [that] can be used at any level of instruction [such as] lower elementary [through] graduate instruction” (Madeja, 2013, p.22).
Van Laar, T., and Diepeveen, L. (1998). Introduction. Active sights: Art as social interaction. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. (1-21)
Laar and Diepeveen (1998) help art educators dispel myths associated with the many roles an artist can present in Active Sights: Art as social interactions. The authors’ informative research of historical sources, myths, and various positions artists can acquire, allow for a more depth conversation as an instructor to have with students. Such as “the vast territory of human purposes, [art can produce]” (Van Laar and Diepeveen, 1998, p.52). Leading an instructor to ultimately and beneficially have a re-evaluation of any “attach[ed] …hierarchy of value to the ways artwork operates socially” (Van Laar and Diepeveen, 1998, p.52). The authors take the reader into an examination of the many descriptions of the roles an artist can present. Such as the skilled worker, intellectual, entrepreneur, social critique, how the artwork produced within each role functions, as well as, any myths attached to the role. All of which, leads to evidence to the argument, how one “can not properly evaluate artworks if one is not clear on the social actions out of which they arise [as] the social activities themselves should be critiqued” (Van Laar and Diepeveen, 1998, p.67). As I took a more in-depth look into my class structure and the role I connect to most, “the Artist as the Social Healer” (p.63), I reexamine not only how my students can “express transcended truths [such as emotions through movement but, how choreography can become a platform,] that [may] accomplish social healing” (Van Laar and Diepeveen, 1998). Challenging my curriculum and structure of rubric, standards, and class goals in positive ways to effectively asses the manner in which my students’ balletic technique is used and graded. More descriptively, for example, if my students’ movement can voice the intent of their feelings in the most precise ways on the stage; how I can find means such as journal entries to properly asses both knowledge of balletic terminology and written prompts demonstrating if students can communicate how and why they have chosen specific steps to vocalize their need to share with an audience their stories, ideas, messages through their bodies’ movement.
Wiggins, G. (1998). “Promoting Student Understanding.” Educative Assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
In Promoting Student Understanding, Wiggins (1998) speaks to a facet of art educators, including performing arts instructors, shining a light on the ideas of the meaning behind “assessing for understanding” (p.71). Probing into the problem many educators encounter, “trying to develop intellectually rigors tasks [often confusing] subject matter knowledge [from] subject matter understanding” (Wiggins, 1998, p.73), the author provides evidence to the argument, to know does not necessarily mean to understand. The authors research how “understanding is not just about coverage of knowledge, then but about the uncovering [process] …enables [educators, in turn, to develop appropriate means to asses a students’ clarity, depth of purpose and rationales whether through written or by observing [students] response to the results of their efforts” (Wiggins, 1998, p.86). As a dance instructor, this reading, in particular, allowed me to reevaluate how I approached assessment. More significantly, redesigning tasks that would evaluate student understanding much more effectively. For instance, Wiggins views “…understanding [as] not just about coverage of knowledge… but about uncovering [within the process of new ideas, allowing to reconnect to] theories previously encountered and learned” (Wiggins, 1998, p.85). Challenging my practice as a studio dance class, I reevaluate tasks and how I would like to asses. Such as a physical assessment of knowledge acquisition of terminology through performance, and a written and verbal assessment of understanding; redesigning a means for more portfolio opportunities in the form of dance journal/choreographic entries, where students can expand in a written fashion. Where, I may asses an understanding of the material but, more importantly, provide an opportunity for students to “circle back to revisit old ideas/reflections… [and] dig deeper as they make connections to new material” (Wiggins, 1998, p.85).