Introduction
Art education is an area of learning that deals with visual, tangible arts, such as sculpture, drawing, painting, and design in jewelry, weaving, fabrics, and pottery. Art education however increases student participation in other areas of the academic environment because it requires learners exercise their brains. Research shows that there is no set art education curriculum content for it is regarded as a continuous process.
According to Dr. Maria Montessori, art education requires an organization that involves many and perhaps all of the cognitive operations known from theoretical thinking. “Art and creativity should not be restricted to being an artist but allow any individual to create things, solve a problem differently and contribute to the workforce, society and humankind.”(Elliot, 2001) As for curriculum orientations, there are three broad categories namely: child-centered, society-centered, and subject centered. It is the status quo in art education that has compelled curriculum developers to try and change content and instructional practices.
As Robert Murray pointed out, the current art curriculum reform proposals fail because they attempt to reform education by directing teachers on what to do rather than empowering them to do according to the expectations. According to Eisner (1985), art curriculum need to be changed if educators expect to achieve the set goals and objectives. In general, curriculum entails the use of qualitative methodology which includes the nature of teaching and learning, teachers’ beliefs, and commitments. The role of art educators in curriculum orientation is to evaluate whether the system is working, needs to be changed or whether new policies and solutions should be initiated.
Statement of the Problem
Does the art education curriculum offered a call for amendment or is it the best?
Arts are not considered to be academic and therefore more freedom is exercised as far as the content required is concerned. Art educators are considered to be diverse in training, commitment, and aspiration since curricular are shallowly or not at all followed. The context offered in art education differs widely as compared to the other sector of education. Therefore, art educators tend to draw their resources, personal beliefs, and visions as well as a small array of customs.
“Educators should realize that the vital part of curriculum orientation is to make sure both the individual and the society in which they function achieve self-fulfillment.” (Eisner, 1998) They should therefore implement the curriculum for the benefit of the learners. According to Pinar and Reynolds (1995), art educators should make sure they have planned instruction, structured series of intended learner outcomes and the official documented objectives to improve the overall performance of the learner.
Educators will need to establish a sound knowledge base for learners to build as they learn new experiences and also they should have the ability to understand a subject well to transfer the knowledge from one generation to the next. “Curriculum will help art educators to translate information, good judgment, experience and wisdom to relevant knowledge that a learner can comprehend, understand and pass it to the others as well as apply in real life situations.” (Dieter, 1995) Researchers have suggested that educators need to be qualified and countries that score highly on international assessments have multiple policies in place to ensure that educators they hire are competent and effective.
Discussion
Though educators have been encouraged to implement the art curriculum, they have experienced some opposing forces. For instance, both learners and educators have resisted curricula both hidden and official. Curriculum orientation processes are so cumbersome in that there are so many obstacles that make it drag on and on. It takes so much time, requires so much money, many people, and more so experts of curriculum development. The process can be streamlined if art educators apply curricular development principles to reduce and save time. According to Dr. Kelly, the role of educators in art curriculum orientation should:
- Have a concrete definition of the expected results of curriculum orientation.
- Be aware of how curriculum project success will be measured.
- Understand the resources, that is, time, people, funds, and space that they should be realistic and available to complete and implement the curriculum.
- Come up with relevant reasons why the stakeholders should care about the curriculum implementation.
- Make sure that art curriculum orientation is timely.
“The new art education curriculum will meet an emerging need in learners discipline, enhance their links with outside world, increase their funding and increase their prestige. It will also improve student completion, improve student achievement, and enhance the success of the learners in their future jobs.” (Dr. Diana, 2005). Art curriculum orientation policies should be relevant to those who will be creating the curriculum and revising as well as the stakeholders.
The child-centered curriculum provides the framework for preparing learners for a lifetime of learning. The main aim is to create highly developed individuals, provide them with skills, knowledge and create a learning experience. Subject-centered is where learners move from subject to the subject after a given duration and the subjects taught are decided by the curriculum committee.
On the other hand, society centered curriculum is the ongoing informal education that we acquire from family, churches, peer groups, neighborhoods, media, organizations, etc. throughout our lives. Having discussed the three models, it is quite clear that child-centered is the most effective among them. Therefore I should recommend to art educators to implement it for the benefit of the learner. In my opinion, some of the opposing views of curriculum orientation are:
- Regulations regarding curriculum orientation in art education are rarely followed. Research has shown that most educators are not ready to change and adapt to the new change and this is because they do not regard art education as academic.
- Outside agencies have also acted as the hindrance in that they do not enlighten the policymakers or implementers on the way to go about the whole process of art curriculum orientation.
- The time frame when implementation should be done is not always well outlined. This has led to educators being reluctant in implementing the given policies.
- In most cases, the ultimate deadline for completion is not their concern. Participants and especially educators and learners usually do not spend much of their time on the project and this has led art education not to improve in terms of efficiency.
- The fund or money required to implement the curriculum is so much and the government and donors are not ready to provide. The financial crisis makes art education continue lagging behind other formal education sectors.
- Lastly, people have criticized art education and its importance in society and this has made the majority lose interest in supporting the system.
This can be supported by the fact that art education is lagging and it is not producing qualified learners. It is a good idea to consider potential solutions before putting significant time and energy into curriculum orientation and development. In the process of curriculum orientation, I should recommend having fewer people involved in the process of curriculum orientation and implementation.
Fewer people are easier to supervise, manage & control and this means the implementation process will be easier to evaluate. Stakeholders should be involved to provide appropriate input and feedback on the art curriculum after implementation. ” In order to ensure consistency and high quality of art education curriculum orientation and implementation, it is vital to build in some educational development workshops and events that will assist the art educators in successful curriculum implementation.” (Dieter, 1995).
Some of the opposing positions and why they are held are: After society having a negative attitude and experiences of art education, then educators do whatever is possible to avoid participating in curriculum orientation and development. Educators should therefore make sure they put the interest of the learners at heart and adopt the learner-centered approaches to curriculum orientation. “There have been also tendencies of educators to apply their suitable methods and skills that they are familiar with. The majority do not want to acquire new skills for they believe that it will take time for the learners to understand and apply them.” (A. Efland, 2002).
In art education, research methods are not more emphasized simply because it dwells much on manual and creative work. The educators argue that if learners are creative in their work, then research findings can be put on hold.
Conclusion
To summarize, my position about the question is that the art education curriculum called for an amendment. We have seen that educators use their appropriate methodologies which favor them without putting the interest of the learners at heart. It is because of this reason that I advocate for either review, revision of the current art curriculum, or introduction and implementation of a new one.
The curriculum should be learner-centered because the result is to build a round student who will be beneficial to society as a whole and also to him/herself. My ultimate reason why I think the curriculum should be changed in favor of the learner is that we need to tap the talent in them. I realize that if art education is taken seriously by the stakeholders, then there is no doubt the standard of living for every member will improve.
This is because learners will be given a chance to create and probably sell things they have specialized in. There are so many individuals out there who can do marvelous if only they have somebody to direct and assist them on how to do it. The entire system requires learners who are creative and critical thinkers. These learners, therefore, need to be directed by qualified and competent educators who are well equipped with the knowledge of the new art education curriculum. I hope that art educators will adhere and agree to change for the good of the learner. If they embrace change, then we shall build a great society and good for our children.
References
A. Efland. (2002). Art and Cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum, New York, Prentice Hall.
Dieter, L. (1995). Art Education, London: Oxford University Press.
Dr. Maria Montessori. (2000). The curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm and Possibility, New York: Macmillan.
Dr. Diana K. Kelly. (2005). Curriculum Development, New York: Macmillan.
Elliot, Eisner. (2001). Research and policy in Art education, London: Cambridge University Press.
Pinar & R. (1995). Understanding curriculum, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.