I
P
[Next Chapter] [Previous Chapter] [Contents]
|
E I P |
4: Pedagogical
Issues [Next Chapter] [Previous Chapter] [Contents] |
This chapter describes and analyses the pedagogical issues which are raised when art schools address the challenges of teaching an increasingly diverse range of students. The growing enrolment of Asian students has coincided with and possibly stimulated a degree of unease with the persistence of Eurocentric curriculum content offered by Australian art schools. This widespread unease extends to a questioning of the validity and efficacy of Western pedagogical approaches which focus great attention on the development of individuality and originality in students.
In this chapter it becomes clear that the character and diversity of adaptations to teaching methods are less diverse and are supported by less developed rationales than those observable in curriculum initiatives. Changing how we do things is perhaps a more intractable challenge than changing what we do. On the other hand, where Asian students are able to compare their learning experiences with previous experience in Asia, the endorsement of Australian teaching practices is substantial.
The chapter looks at schools where Drawing, Art Theory/History and Studio programs are available. It examines adaptations made to the teaching practices employed in the delivery of these components of Fine Arts courses. The order in which these findings are presented is general results (no particular emphasis on Art Theory/History, Studio or Drawing), Art Theory/History results and then Drawing results24.
The data for this chapter were collected from Questionnaire 1 and the student questionnaires (Questionnaires 2 to 5) (refer to ‘Methodology’ in the Introduction).
Changes to Teaching Methodology due to Cultural Difference
This section deals with responses to Questionnaire 1, Question 4, in which all schools were asked the following question:
Q4 Have you reconsidered or changed your teaching methodology due to cultural differences?
This was a general question, not one related specifically to Art Theory/History, Drawing or Studio.
Question 4 was divided into two parts:
Out of 29 art schools that returned their questionnaires, 26 answered Question 4. Fourteen schools (54%) answered ‘yes’, 11 (42%) said ‘no’, and one school indicated that, while they had altered their teaching methodology for Drawing, they had not done so for Art Theory.
Figure 4.1: Art Schools which have Changed their Teaching Methodology in Drawing and Art Theory
Seventeen schools made further comments that fell into the following broad categories:
Individual tutorials/supervision/programs
7 schools
Consideration given to English as second language/language support
7 schools (one of these provides assistance at Master’s level only)
Peer assisted study scheme and learning programs/mentors
3 schools
International student liaison person
1 school
Consideration of background/previous training
1 school
One school added that ‘extensive consideration [is] being given to changes in delivery’. One of the two schools that indicated no changes were being made added that this issue is being addressed as part of planning, and the other commented that their program is sensitive to differences in students’ backgrounds and communication.
The most commonly cited means of accommodating the special needs of Asian students is to employ a supplementary approach.
In all, 11 respondents cite examples of supplementing Asian students’ courses: two in the form of extra tuition time, and seven by accessing institutionally sponsored programs such as ESL or NESB programs. Two others utilise the expertise of specialist staff within the school.
A second frequently cited option is to negotiate students’ projects or inquiries on an individual basis. Eight examples of these strategies are apparent in the comments.
In addition a number of schools use a combination of these strategies.
Further Issues Raised by Staff
Question 3 of Questionnaire 1, a question that dealt with curriculum issues, elicited a number of responses which address pedagogical rather than curriculum issues in that they described adjustments to the way courses are delivered in addition to, or rather than, changes in course content. These responses are analysed here.
Q3 Have you reconsidered or changed the curriculum content due to the enrolment of Asian students?
Four different types of approaches to accommodating the special needs of Asian students have been identified in the additional comments provided by the respondents:
Supplementary approach: Involves extra tuition time.
Alternative approach: Offers students special consideration in the form of different material where cultural sensitivities need to be accommodated.
Comparative approach: Involves development of resource materials to allow the exploration of difference, exchange of ideas. For example:
As part of the UMAP programmes in Thailand and Indonesia 1994/1995 (and hopefully 1996) some of our students spend 12 weeks in an Asian art school. On return, they have a greater awareness of that culture and its approach to art practice. They then share this with other students.
Interpretive approach: Involves a student-directed orientation being encouraged in teaching programs. For example:
Through the school Studio work...the development of individual work proposals...encourages and recognises diversity of issues relating to cultural differences.
This allows students to incorporate an international dimension to their work if desired. Evidently lecturers facilitate this on an individual basis where necessary. In such cases it is clear that the extent to which issues of internationalisation are addressed in the curriculum would depend on student demand.
The second part of Question 4 in Questionnaire 1 asked if staff had reconsidered or changed their teaching methodology in terms of assessment criteria and methods (e.g. allowances made for English not being a first language).
Twenty-five out of the 29 art schools completed this question, with 12 (48%) answering ‘yes’, 12 (48%) saying ‘no’, and one school indicating that, while they had altered their teaching methodology for Drawing, they had not done so for Art Theory.
Fourteen schools made additional comments that fall into the following broad categories:
Individual allowances made for language/interpreter
7 schools
Individual arrangements/special consideration (incl. review procedures)
4 schools
Provision of specialised staff/mentors/seminars for staff
3 schools
Informal allowance
2 schools
Resources
11 schools mention the use of one or more special resources such as the use of a translator, the use of vivas or audio tape presentation to facilitate assessment.
One school made the additional comment that they ‘hoped/intended assessment criteria accommodated diversity’. One school said that no changes had been made or proposed to date.
Comments on the Above Findings
Special consideration given to any group in an assessment context usually provokes considerable argument and the generation of rationales to justify any allowances made. However, in contrast to the chapter about curriculum issues, no rationales for the sorts of adaptations mentioned can be discerned from the responses given.
Three clear trends emerge from these comments:
Art Theory: Pedagogical Issues Raised by Australian and Asian Students
In answering questions in the Art Theory/History questionnaires (Questionnaires 2 and 3), students made a few comments that had implications for pedagogy.
One Australian student (out of 16 who made comments related to Question 3 of the questionnaire) said that Asian content in Art Theory/History provides a link to studio work that is not provided elsewhere in the course. When the remainder of
the course is not internationalised, the non-Western content of the Art Theory/History program can gain special significance for students who would otherwise have no access to this material.
A few Asian students made additional comments in the general comments section at the end of Questionnaire 2, rather than in answer to specifically pedagogical questions. Two (33%) out of six Asian students who commented believed they were unfairly treated with regard to assessment. For example:
Sometime[s] we all feel tutors haven’t give[n] the fair/equal mark for us, local students always get higher than us.
One other Asian student said there was insufficient work space provided:
First year student[s] haven’t got its [sic,] own work area so you have to bring everything on your own. As you know, we have to take four different subjects, things we carry is huge and plenty.
Art Theory: Asian Students’ Experience of Study in Asia and Australia
In addition to the above comments, Asian students in Questionnaire 2 were asked for information and comments regarding their experiences of being a student at art school in their own country and in Australia.
Although these questions may be interpreted to have a curriculum development or broader issue emphasis, they have been retained here as a group as many of the responses have implications for pedagogical approaches.
Q12 Have you attended art school in your own country before coming to Australia?
Out of a total of 28 Asian students, the responses were evenly divided, with 12 students (50%) saying ‘yes, and 12 saying ‘no’.
The results from this sample group indicate that half of the Asian students coming to study art in Australia have undertaken previous study in art in their own country. The remainder are studying art for the first time in Australia.
Students were asked to briefly describe the Art Theory/History units they studied in their own country. Fourteen students made additional comments in the following categories.
Very little or no Art Theory/History offered
4 students (29%)
Art Theory/History program included non-Western art (incl. Asian art, African art)
4 students (29%)
Western art
3 students (21%)
General introduction to art history
1 student (7%)
History of graphic design
1 student (7%)
Two students (14%) added that their Art Theory/History program in Asia was similar to that offered in their Australian school but that it was taught in more depth here. Both of these students were attending art schools offering a predominantly Eurocentric curriculum with under 25 per cent non-Western content in the Theory program.
Although this information is only gained from a small sample group, it has illuminated the fact that many Asian students could be studying tertiary-level art for the first time at an Australian art school. Additionally, a substantial number of these students will be studying Art Theory/History for the first time (and being expected to submit written work as part of assessment).
Recommendation 14:
That art schools who have Art Theory/History as a compulsory component of their undergraduate degree program ensure that satisfactory English language support or mentoring programs are in place.
Asian students were also asked in Questionnaire 2 to compare, where relevant, the Art Theory/History units they studied in their own country with those offered in their Australian art school.
Q13 Please rate the Art Theory/History units you studied in your own country and those you are studying in Australia.
Of the 24 students who answered this question, 19 (79%) rated the Art Theory/History they had studied in their own country as being average or below.
In answer to Question 12, only 12 students had indicated that they had attended art school in their own country. The fact that 19 students chose to answer Question 13 seems to imply that, for seven of these students, the Theory training they had received at home was not in an art school context.
When asked to rate the Art Theory/History courses they had attended in Australia, 27 out of the 29 students answered the question. Of these, 16 (59%) rated it as above average, and 11 (41%) said it was average or below.
Bearing in mind that some students were not offered Art Theory/History in their own country, and others did not study before coming to Australia , the Asian students who answered these questions rated their Australian Theory units more highly than those they had studied in Asia.
79 per cent rated their Asian experience of Art Theory/History as average or below, with 21 per cent rating it as ‘good’, and none giving an ‘excellent’ rating.
96 per cent rated their Australian experience of Art Theory/History at average or above, with 22 per cent rating it as ‘excellent’.
Asian students were then asked more general questions regarding their experience of being a student and adjusting to study in Australia.
Q15 Please rate your experience of being a student in Australia.
Out of 28 students, 26 answered this question. Twenty-two students (85%) said it was average and above, and four (15%) said it was below average.
Figure 4.2: Asian Students’ Experience of Study in Australia
Nineteen students made additional comments explaining why they rate it this way:
Number of Students |
Percentage |
|
Exposure to a broader range of art |
3 |
16 |
| Encourages new ways of thinking/freedom of approach/better communication | 3 |
16 |
Helps understanding |
2 |
11 |
Slower pace of work |
1 |
5 |
| Good support systems for overseas students | 1 |
5 |
| Better relationship with staff here than in Asia | 1 |
5 |
| ‘Great experience in Painting and Art Theory’ | 1 |
5 |
The negative comments included:
Number of Students |
Percentage |
|
| Language problems/lack of assistance in English | 4 |
21 |
Poor staff/student communication |
1 |
5 |
Asian students rate their experience of study in Australia highly, with 85 per cent of respondents rating it as average and above, and 27 per cent rating it as ‘excellent’. Only 15 per cent said it was below average. The reasons for good experiences appear to be mainly freedom of communication and expression. On the negative side, a fairly high number of students (21%) perceive support mechanisms as lacking.
Recommendation 15:
That art schools catering for Asian students facilitate their study through access to language support structures (e.g. ESL centres).
Q16 How has your adjustment to living in Australia and Australian culture affected your ability to study?
Eighteen students took this opportunity to comment on their experiences. Their comments fell into the following broad categories:
Number of Students |
Percentage |
|
No problems with adjustment |
4 |
22 |
| More freedom in giving opinions/less pressure | 3 |
17 |
Problems at start, but all right now |
2 |
11 |
Negative comments included:
Number of Students |
Percentage |
|
Language problems |
2 |
11 |
Racism problems |
1 |
6 |
Pace of work too slow |
1 |
6 |
| Major problems adjusting (but not stating what) | 1 |
6 |
Not enough time to manage work properly |
1 |
6 |
While many students experience no difficulty settling down to study in Australia, the problem of language crops up again, as well as making adjustment to different work ethics. These problems could partially be overcome by introducing a mentoring system (as will be seen in Chapter 5, ‘Broader Issues’, the majority of students have not participated in a mentoring scheme).
Recommendation 16:
That, in order to minimise problems caused by adjustment to studying in Australia, a mentoring system be utilised by art schools that have Asian students.
Asian Students’ Perceptions on Drawing Teaching and Assessment
In Questionnaire 4 a number of questions are asked of Asian students which seek information about pedagogical issues. Evidence of prior participation in formal Drawing classes in their home country is related to questions which asked respondents to draw comparisons between their current and previous learning experiences. Respondents were also asked whether they notice their Asian heritage influencing their Drawing and whether they had observed changes being made to their Drawing courses in order to accommodate their specific needs.
In this chapter the responses are interpreted from the perspective of pedagogical issues including the influence of prior learning and teaching practices.
Q2 Have you ever attended regular Drawing classes in Australia?
The total number of respondents was 21, of whom 8 (38%) answered ‘yes’ and 13 (62%) said ‘no’25.
Questions 1 and 2 are intended to inform the following two sub-questions. These have elicited responses which can be categorised as either pedagogical or curriculum issues. The pedagogical related responses are examined here.
Q2 (contd) If yes, list the positive aspects of those classes.
Five (24%) students responded to this question. Their answers reveal that:
Open-ended and flexible pedagogical approaches are clearly endorsed in these responses.
Q2 (contd) List the negative aspects of those classes.
Two students (10%) responded to this question. Of these responses, one relates to the impact of resourcing on teaching and the other to the effects of teaching deadlines:
Although quite different in nature, both of the negative comments address pedagogical issues. Adequate resourcing of students’ requirements and consideration of individual students’ time needs have a significant impact on learning outcomes and are hence important pedagogical considerations26.
Q3 Are the Drawing classes you attend in Australia different from those you attended in Asia?
Eight (80%) out of the 10 students who answered this question said ‘yes’. The comments made to this question are worth considering. Australian schools are compared favourably with those in Asia in that classes are seen as more open ended in Australia, students are allowed more personal choice and more freedom. One student mentioned that in Asia students are expected to follow their teachers’ ideas.
Q4 Do you observe different artistic values being used in the teaching and assessment of Drawing in Australia?
Eight students answered this question, of whom four (50%) answered ‘yes’ and the remainder ‘no’. One student commented that the very high student-to-teacher ratio at his/her Asian school meant that only very superficial feedback was given, while another noted the relative freedom of Australian Drawing classes.
Q9 Do you think these elements (see Asian Heritage, Question 8) are properly appreciated by your Australian Drawing teachers?
Of the nine students who answered, one (11%) said only below-average appreciation was evident, five (56%) said there was average appreciation, and three (33%) said there was above-average appreciation.
Only two respondents made additional comments to this question. One noted that ‘they don’t mind heritage much’ while the other has noticed that his/her teachers ‘especially like brush strokes’.
These comments reflect each respondent’s rating of appreciation as low appreciation and moderate appreciation respectively.
Q10 Can you suggest ways of improving the Drawing classes you attend in Australia?
The three students (14%) who responded to this question did so in the form of endorsement of Australian classes as they found them.
Implications and Recommendations Identified (Asian Students)
In spite of the lack of detailed information generated by this particular questionnaire, a number of general conclusions can be drawn from the available data.
The additional comments to this questionnaire reveal that, where students were able to make a comparison, overall, Asian students found their participation in Drawing classes in Australia a positive experience. The individualised teaching methods of Australian Drawing teachers and the generally open-ended and non-prescriptive nature of Australian classes were appreciated.
The response to the question of whether an appreciation of Asian culture was demonstrated by Australian teachers is worth consideration. Although 12 (57%) of the respondents did not complete this section of the questionnaire, only three (14%) reported good appreciation of Asian culture in their Australian Drawing teachers and some of the comments suggest that appreciation may be superficial. ‘Liking brush strokes’ may mean that appreciation extends only to stylistic concerns.
Influence on Choice of Topic: Drawing (Australian Students)
Q6 To what extent has the inclusion of Asian content in your Drawing units influenced your approach to Drawing projects?
Out of a total of 152 Australian students, 132 answered this question. Of these, 79 (60%) said there was no influence, 35 (27%) said there was low to medium influence, and 13 (10%) said the influence was medium. Three students (2%) rated the influence as medium to high, and one student (1%) said there was significant influence. The remaining student answered ‘don’t know’.
It is clear that the majority of Australian students are scarcely noticing any influence of Asia on their Drawing practice. Only 17 (13%) of these students report that contact with Asian material in their course has had moderate, significant or major influence on their Drawing projects. Overall, 16 (12%) of the respondents make positive comments about the influence of Asian content on their Drawing projects.
Where influence is identified, the character of this influence is quite diverse. Four discrete categories which acknowledge and describe the Asian influence can be identified from the comments.
Those which consider place of art in society; including:
Those which pertain to aesthetic issues such as:
Those which affect style, including:
Those which have stimulated an interest in specific cultures
One student mentioned that direct contact with individuals from Asia had far more influence on his/her work than course content, while another said:
...Asian influence for Australians is an irrevocably present issue, a part of our everyday lives.
A further student (who mentions that his/her background is Asian) consciously considers the idea of Asian art while drawing and sometimes uses Asian techniques.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of Questionnaire 1 indicate that almost half of the Australian art schools that answered the questionnaire have not adapted their teaching methods in response to the inclusion of Asian students in their courses. However, where modifications have been made, the quality of responses from students to these changes suggest that the benefits can be substantial.
The responses are diverse, specific and many demonstrate considerable thought. Many of these responses would be a useful starting point to the development of desirable learning outcomes to inform and underpin pedagogical and curriculum development initiatives.
The diversity and spread of the responses suggest that knowledge and understanding of intercultural issues exist as specific and isolated pockets of expertise across universities.
Recommendation 17:
That art schools develop learning outcomes which can be used to inform and underpin pedagogical and curriculum development initiatives which address Asia.
Recommendation 18:
That in adopting the above recommendations art schools share their expertise through seminars, conferences and teaching exchanges.
Recommendation 19:
That schools undertake sustained and ongoing initiatives aimed a developing and maintaining curriculum material for use in Drawing and Studio which addresses Asia.
Recommendation 20:
That art schools consider the complexity and diversity of Asia and identify the areas of expertise in Asian issues among teaching staff. This information should form the basis of professional development programmes for teaching staff which target specific knowledge deficits within the staff profile.
Recommendation 21:
That when developing criteria for new teaching appointments within art schools the existing knowledge base within a school be considered so that it can be complemented rather than duplicated.