Import Test

SoTL Project Discussion

The following post and comments are reproduced from an earlier discussion on teaching beginning drawing facilitated by Jan Arabas as a part of her SoTL project.  They have been copied for inclusion in the Blog Book.

This week the Copper Cluster Blog will be devoted to a discussion of Jan Arabas' interview study, "Teaching Drawing." In my study, I asked 25 teachers of beginning drawing to answer these questions: "What are the crucial lessons for beginners in drawing? What are the best ways for teaching those questions?" Now I have asked these same teachers to join the Blog to share reactions to the paper I am writing. I have also asked the Middlesex Carnegie Group to visit and share their insights. I hope for a detailed discussion of the issues outlined in my paper, but also for a more general discussion of how these issues may crop up in other disciplines.

I thought that I would pose some questions of the day to get the ball rolling. Perhaps we could start with these questions. Later in the week I hope we can discuss more questions.If this does not line up with your interests please feel free to ignore the question and discuss what does matter to you.

Can we begin by questioning my central premise? I realized after conducting a number of interviews that many of you believe that new students misunderstand drawing and go about it the wrong way. I heard about two mistakes that this leads to-- the tendency to draw conceptually rather than from observation and the tendency to copy rather than interpret. I also heard about how deep seated these tendencies are, leading to a great number of exercises designed to prevent beginners from drawing using old, bad habits. Does this seem familar to you? Do you think beginners misunderstand drawing? Is the main point of the beginning course to break prior conceptions of drawing and replace them with better ones? Are the main lessons drawing from observation and learning to interpret rather than copy? Are there other lessons that are as or more important?

Does this play itself out in other disciplines? Do beginners misunderstand the main point of a composition course or Intro to Psychology or Botany? What misconceptions to they bring with them? Does this lead to mistakes? Do you need to design lessons that don't just teach new ways of thinking, but actually prevent students from working based on prior conceptions?

Please jump in! I have provided a PDF of the study for you, should you need one.

Posted by Jan Arabas

Comments:

I think the issues you raise are fascinating, Jan, and I see similar parallels with my course in abnormal psychology. Students in that course are very fast to put a diagnostic label on someone and in the process almost ignore the complexity of behaviors presented to them. They "copy rather than interpret" and don't spend time on the critical aspect of observation.

I think both of these examples fit well with studies contrasting novices and experts. Expert knowledge tends to be organized around general principles rather than concrete examples. Experts spend much more time in problem presentation while novices jump to quick solutions. Experts tend to consider specifics then move slowly to generating solutions while novices create a hypothesis early on and try to find evidence to support it.

In some ways students are like apprentices who need to work with someone over time to develop a skill slowly. In earlier times someone "apprenticed" with a master artist to learn the craft but the master artist probably did not have much interest in the apprentice's skill. Although I think it is important to appreciate a student's viewpoints I wonder if we underestimate the time needed for viewpoints to develop. An apprentice knew he had to stay with someone for a certain amount of time before getting recognized. Students often seem to miss the importance of putting in the time to master the concepts.

Your study demonstrates clearly the importance of spending time to observe and consider multiple aspects of something before drawing. It is a slow process and I suspect really cannot be speeded up. I think we need to help students appreciate this aspect of learning more.

Posted by: Donna Killian Duffy | April 26, 2005 04:38 PM

I find your study fascinating for many reasons. As someone who cannot express herself in this kind of medium, I am probably similar to many of your students in my preliminary expectations. I remember, for instance, being very impressed with my daughter's ability to draw, and in fact, encouraged her to copy pictures all the time even as she got older. I asked advise from Margie Swan once about how to encourage what I saw as talent. I see now that one of the suggestions that she made speaks to your points. She told me to encourage her to create something original and then work on that. I'm truncating our conversation here, but as it relates to your project, I can see why she wanted to suggest that my daughter move away from the "copying" stage.

Like Donna, I can draw some parallels to my discipline. In teaching students to analyze literature, I see several stages. The students who are already comfortable with reading expect to like a literature class. Although not exactly the same, the connection to "copying" may be more appropriately called imitating. In other words, they expect the literature in this class to imitate that with which they are familiar. They bring to the class their preconcieved ideas about literature--often either that it is boring or that it should be as accessible as their everyday reading. About half way through a given semester, though, they begin to see the differences, and I can then expect someone (usually the students who have done all the work diligently) to say something like, "There's no way that this author was thinking about all the things that you read into the story when they were writing it."

My experience tells me that this seemingly negative reaction is actually positive because it is the beginning of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the potential that literature has to illustrate the complexity of human nature as well as life itself.

To apply the reference to novice vs expert to my discipline, I can observe that as students begin to recognize and accept the notion that the literature that we are reading is likely to be more dense and radiate more meanings than what they're used to, they move into another stage wherein they "see" symbolism everywhere! I also concur that the process(one that I have admittedly oversimplified) cannot be speeded up.

Posted by: Phyllis Gleason | April 28, 2005 12:24 PM

1. I feel strongly that a one or two semester beginning perceptual drawing course needs to focus primarily on the theoretical concepts and mechanical techniques necessary for translating observed three-dimensional visual information to the two-dimensional picture plane. While I actively defend the preeminence of freedom in a fine art environment, I have come to understand the the importance of discipline, visual sensitivity, patience, eye-hand coordination, a rigorous work ethic, and a solid conceptual base as the essential tools necessary to take full advantage of one's freedom.

2. I have never had a student disagree about the content of my course. The fact that the course is titled INTRODUCTION TO PERCEPTUAL DRAWING might explain this lack of misunderstanding.

Students who sign up for my classes have varying levels of experience and natural talent but I promise them that if they have normal eyesight, coordination, motor skills, and they work hard at the assignments they will leave the course with the ability to draw (understand) what they see.

Yes, I require them to stand while drawing, use a drawing grip, draw with a specified charcoal tool, and follow instructions as to how to develop a drawing from the initial gesture stages.

Perceptual drawing demands a progressive series of procedural steps. The Intuitive Gesture exercises when mixed with the Perceptual Grid exercises are always challenging and exciting. I especially enjoy the series of drawings that progress from directly observing the set up and drawing in a normal position to drawing with the students back to the set up to finally having the set up out the door and down the hall while keeping the drawing surface in the classroom. The results usually improve as the degree of difficulty increases.

4. I believe that introduction to perceptual drawing is an appropriate and necessary course at the foundation level of art programs. It is also very popular as an elective for non majors. The course content described in my textbook, DRAWING FROM OBSERVATION, can be covered adequately in one semester (thoroughly in two).

It needs to be understood by those in charge of foundations curricula that learning is a progressive process. All the clichés apply. Students need to be taught to walk before they run, etc. I believe that foundations has recently been the scene of entirely too much rethinking. What is needed at the introductory level is a return to perceptual drawing basics.

Posted by: Brian Curtis | April 28, 2005 01:07 PM

Jan, All the comments about drawing are on target.

Another factor we might also consider is the purpose of drawing for an artist. If you'll accept this bland and brief description of an artist as a self-aware, unique, creator we can discuss some of the flaws in students ambition and logic. I feel like most students in the 14-19 year-old range belive the end of drawing is to copy or mimic photographic subjects effectively. Some work is in the choosing of subject matter- but most is in the accuracy of technical rendering where the immediate comparison reveals flaws or fidelity.

I'm beginning to adjust my tack and follow Sean Miller's and Bethany Taylor's approach from WARP (the comparatively radical foundation program at U Fla Gainsville) where they show students media examples of the stereotype of the artist as reckless, loner, expressive, misunderstood genius. They seem to effectively rupture the preconceived notion of neutral immitator.

Each drawing student needs a different pedgogical cocktail, but I wonder if the best recipe towards artistic (creative and personally expressive) success could follow identity first and then vision (perceptual and interpretive drawing) second?

One drawing assignment that comes closest to personal identity drawn out of the student through a variety of approaches is a "Mask Project": http://faculty.weber.edu/sjbetz/teachingfolder/drawing/web%20pages%20folder/draass8.html where the students imagine becoming another character through the power of a mask. They build the mask, draw the mask using perspectives and lighting that underscore the nature of the character the mask represents, and then they perform with the mask. The suggestions in the critique afterward often suggest revisions to the drawing based on the quality of the actions in the performance. If they were dynamic in the performance, then why not incorporate dynamic line in the drawing. I can then draw a parallel between the exaggeration in human action and interaction and the way drawing can carry some of those same ideas.

Thanks for the opportunity to share ideas>

Posted by: scott betz | April 28, 2005 01:35 PM

I guess I accidentally posted this in the wrong place, but I do want to participate in the conversation, so I will repost it here.

The biggest concern, of course, in educating students in any discipline is to develop their skills with problem solving. Students rarely understand that that is the goal of an education. Based on their past school experiences, they usually think they are in classes to master information and polish technique. Regardless of the field, most teachers find that they have to realign the students goals with the goals of education and that means teaching them to think, rather than just to do.

In art, that translates into problem solving skills with technique, the expansion of their ability to use the formal qualities effectively, and a realization that art is about the idea as much as it is about the thing. I don't think this is so much different than math or psychology, but I tend to take a global approach to the world.

Posted by: Kay Byfield | April 28, 2005 02:01 PM

The act of drawing is a low tech process as the costs of materials is minimal. Ways of working out ideas quickly has always been of primary importance to the artist, architects, etc. I remember a conversation of two students I overheard in the hall (I did not know them) where one said, "the teacher wants us to draw an object in our room with charcoal but I could do this in ten minutes with my mouse and computer." He obviously missed the point of using drawing as an exploration of process completely and would have rather created an expedient product. Get the job done quickly no matter what! Does anyone feel that the computer (and video games) has altered the ability of students to sustain their attention?

Posted by: Kurt Wisneski | April 28, 2005 03:42 PM

Jan, I found reading your paper and the previous comments to be quite stimulating. It would be interesting to have similar conversations from the perspective of teaching introductory courses in different disciplines. The reading and discussion has prompted a number of questions and reactions. I don’t think I can address them all in one post, but I’ll take a stab at getting started.

I was first struck by the opening sentence in your paper “I went to art school to become a professional artist, I never took a course in how to teach…” I think many of us in other disciplines can relate to this dilemma. In a way we serve two masters, or have two professions. We have our subject matter which has required many years of study in order to develop expertise. However, we also have the “profession of teaching” which has its own body of research, theory, and practice. For most of us there exists a significant disparity between our knowledge base in one of these domains and the other. In addition, we can distinguish between knowledge of how to teach our specific subject matter versus more generic expertise in the field of teaching and learning.

If you were given the choice of reading a book on art, a book on teaching art, or a book on teaching, which would you prefer to read? We all face these choices and decisions given our limited time and energy. I’m reminded of the story (fictitious) of a brain surgeon who had spent years learning about the structure and function of the brain from readings and lectures, but who had never received any specific training in the skill of surgery, and was expected to learn on the job. Ouch! Not with my brain please.

A second thought has to do with one of the main themes in your paper which was reinforced by the comments of the other drawing faculty that have responded here. I think many of us deal with the tension between the knowledge and habits of mind that our students bring with them to our classrooms and the skills and mind set we would like to impart. Old habits die hard, and one of our key challenges is to develop strategies to challenge the attitudes and habits of the past. This seems to imply that we need to create some degree of discomfort or disequilibrium in order to facilitate change.

In my field of psychology, students have spent the majority of their lives as “amateur psychologists” attempting to understand and judge behavior based on their experience, environment and thinking patterns. The challenge I face is to encourage them to be more objective, look at current research, and think critically about their own and others assumptions. While we can measure whether they provide the answers we desire on a test, the question as to whether real change has occurred in their world view is much more difficult to assess.

My experience is that reading, listening and discussion is not always sufficient to produce significant change. Experiential learning is a key component. For example, if a student who maintains stereotypical views or prejudicial attitudes towards any group of individuals has the opportunity to work closely and collaboratively with people representing these groups, the possibility for attitude change may be significantly greater.

More to come…

Posted by: Don Margulis | April 28, 2005 04:00 PM

I wasn't sure if I could relate to this 'Blog discussion' because I teach in a nursing program. However, I have enjoyed reading Jan's interview study AND everyone's comments! (Although the content area in my discipline is different, the process is definitely the same.) For example, the 2 issues that Jan set forth are also stuggles for the nursing students.....1. 'the tendency to draw conceptually...'..studentstruggle to embrace the role of the nurse. Many students have worked as para professionals or watch ER on TV and carry an unrealistic concept of the role of the nurse. (Mostly they are excited when they learn that they can now teach,advocate etc. for their patients.) 2. Addressing the second issue...ie. 'the tendency to copy rather than interpret' is more difficult to teach! (In the case of nursing it requires that students first copy data and then interpret and analyze it. (It's a struggle because it requires higher levels of critical thinking....and I agree with all of you.... it takes time). Over the years I have discovered that if students have an optimum level of anxiety, they can master this level of critical thinking......Thanks for the opportunity to share this reflection. Marie

Posted by: Marie Ryder | April 29, 2005 05:02 PM

The following comments are generated by genuine curiosity rather than simply an attempt to be provocative. It can be difficult to reflect tone of voice in text. As someone who teaches classes that are populated by a wide spectrum of students who may or may not have an interest in the subject matter(Introduction to Psychology), I’m interested in the teaching perspective of those who teach courses in which students who tend to enroll generally have a significant degree of talent and interest in the subject.

Jan’s paper and a number of the discussion comments have examined the skills that a drawing class attempts to develop. As someone who is “drawing challenged” I never signed up for a college course in drawing or painting for fear of failure and/or embarrassment. I remember even in elementary school my drawings were never chosen by the teacher to hang on the board. I suspect my art skills have improved little over the years. As an advisor, many of my students pull back when I suggest a studio art or music course, expressing that they lack the talent or ability.

My question to those who teach art is - would you want me and my reluctant advisees in your classroom? And if so, what might we gain from the experience? Given that the majority of your students enter the drawing class with what I assume is some affinity and talent for drawing, yet many will not become professional artists, what do you hope they will take from the class as well?

Kay Byfield indicated that developing problem solving skills is a goal for her drawing classes. Mention was made in several places of the importance of developing effective “observation” skills. Might the way that I see and perceive change? Might I have a better appreciation of what factors are evident in an excellent drawing? Or would I emerge from the experience primarily confirming that I really do have limited drawing skills?

Posted by: Don Margulis | April 30, 2005 01:05 PM

Thank you to all who posted. Of course, I am delighted to have had this opportunity to get some feedback from you on the paper. I wanted to respond to severeal of your comments and questions.

Don, I will start with your question. I firmly believe that anyone can learn to draw from observation and that talent or prior ability has little or nothing to do with this. Certainly some people draw better than others-- we do not all become Rembrandt-like. One of my students told me about driving down her street and suddenly noticing that every tree and telephone pole was casting a shadow and that she could see persective lines everywhere. Drawing does make you more observant. Most students say that they have a much greater appreciation of the drawings of professional artists as a result of taking drawing. You might still feel limited, but that goes away as you become engossed in the process of making drawings.

Kurt, I definitely think the computer has affected my students. I know that they feel that their computer generated work looks 'better' by which I think they mean more like the images they see in advertising. They have trouble losing themsleves in the drawing process-it seems fustrating rather than enjoyable for many. I do not notice this same reaction in my electronic imaging class, where students seem more willing to get lost in the process and seem to enjoy it a little more. My untested theory is that the end result is so important to them and the end result of the electronic imaging is more familiar to them-- more like the images that surround them.

Brain, I have great sympathy for your position. At the same time, I see a problem in many of my own students aand have talked about the same problem with some other teachers-- a number of students seem to come out of perceptual classes disconnected from their subjects and lacking in ideas. They draw well but don't know how to connect their drawing to their emotions, thier life, their beliefs and the ongoing conversations in our discipline. I find myself remembering my own struggles following art school. I came through an undergraduate program that stressed perceptual drawing and demanded a rigorous 4 years of drawing. When I entered grad school I was told, well you draw well but so what? What do you want to say? I was at a bit of a loss for quite a while. These are my own shortcomings, I realize.

what do you do to help your students become more than draftsmen-- to become artists?

Jan

Posted by: Jan Arabas | May 1, 2005 02:10 PM

Jan,

Thanks for the compliment but I prefer "Brian." The point is not whether "their emotions, their life, their beliefs and the ongoing conversations in our discipline" are important subjects, it is realizing that a single, one semester course in perceptual drawing cannot and should not be expected to convey the broad range of content you listed above. Focusing on the "grand issues" of artmaking leaves progressively less room for the basic elements and principles of visual communication. That is precisely what I meant when I said that there is too much "rethinking" going on in foundations.

My experience tells me we are fortunate to be able to successfully engage students in a meaningful dialogue on the issues of "their emotions, their life, their beliefs and the ongoing conversations in our discipline" in a 72 credit hour BFA program, much less a single introductory drawing class. To try to pack all that into a beginning drawing class might be motivated by well-meaning intentions but it is a highly unrealistic goal that denies students the fundamental skills, concepts, and experiences they will need to make meaningful sense of the more complicated issues they will encounter in the course of their studies.

Posted by: Brian Curtis | May 4, 2005 10:25 AM