Online ST Network Conversation, March 18th

On Monday, Matt and Kate hosted our monthly Online ST Network conversation on Adobe Connect. Lois Hetland introduced the second edition of Studio Thinking and facilitated a conversation around:

1) The dispositional elements: An articulation of the skill, alertness and inclination dispositions, and

2) The generative tension in clusters: How do SHoM pull on each other?

Click here to review Lois' entire slide presentation

In addition to the dispositional elements and generative tensions, Lois and Shirley Veenema unveiled the "Four Full-Color Story Examples of How Habits Interact" section of the new book, which highlights the artwork of four high school students.

Following the presentation on ST2, we watched Art 21 Artist Exclusives on Doris Salcedo and Yinka Shonibare MBE. Participants were invited to share their responses to the short video clips and to note possible SHoM generative tensions.

by Doris Salcedo

by Yinka Shonibare

We had strong participant involvement in this session, which led to some thought provoking conversations and text chatting around artistic thinking, metacognition and best practice. You can check out the entire live recording by clicking on this link.

Stay tuned for what will be covered in our next Online ST Network conversation.

Mind Over Matter

I'm a master of getting in my own way.  However, as I started to plug images into my PechaKucha, I started to see how absolutely I use the Studio Habits of Mind in every aspect of my teaching.  Now I just need to actually use the terminology!  And post on the blog more.  I hope to convey that to all of you who catch my 20x20.

Muscial Table Discussion/Speed Crit

This is another way I incite students to have a lively discussion. I made it up this year based on an art-making project* I love to do and something I saw at one of the early SHoM workshops.

This works great for topic discussions (an example would be when we watched the animated movie "Persepolis", and needed to analyze and discuss it). It also works well for quick student critiques.

There are 6 stations in the classroom where students sit in groups of 4 - 6. I will put a large sheet of paper (18 x 24 or bigger) at each station.

TOPIC DISCUSSIONS:

• In the middle of the paper I will write a prompt (6 different prompts in total, one for each station). I might also provide an art image and written prompt for art history critique.
• Students have pencils ready.
• They have 3 minutes to visit each station as a group. 
• At each station, students write (on the large sheet of paper) whatever comes to mind regarding the prompt. 
• I have them work their way around the classroom in clock-wise formation. 
• During the 3 minute period I play music as a cue for students to write. At the end of each 3 minute section, I stop the music as a cue for students to stop writing and move to the next station. This makes it fun and like the musical chairs game.
• Once the students have gone around the room and are back at their own station, we go into discussion mode. 
• Students read the responses to each other and begin discussing the issue at their table. 
• Students must find at least 5 main responses to the prompt topic and discuss them. They must have at least 2 responses that someone disagrees with, and  discuss why they disagree and what their opposing point is as a result.
• The group "Recorder" writes down what their group discusses in a bullet list formation. 
• The next day each group has 3 minutes to present discussion notes to the whole class. Each presentation, students in the class must have at least 1 response to challenge the group, question the group, or make a supportive remark. Often there is more than one response :). The group must counter any class feedback with an answer or explanation of their viewpoint.
• Students receive points for group discussion/recorded notes, and separate points for presentation to class.
• The results of this technique makes for what seems like chaos, but is really several fast-paced and animated discussions. Everyone in the class gets to participate first in a small-group setting for each topic, and then in larger group setting for all topics. 
• I find that several things have made people forget about being self-conscious and silent in this kind of group discussion: 1) the whole thing is rather like a game and fun, 2) the fast pace puts pressure on people to come up with a response, 3) prompts give a clear indication of where I want them to start, 4) the structure provides a framework for definite but open-ended answers. 5) the grading structure insures that students must have something to present and a way to respond to the presentations (ensuring a flow of ideas and conversation), 6) since all students write on each of the prompt sheets, there is a sense of sharing information. Students get to use each others ideas to provoke further thought, 7)students become very loyal to their group and want to defend their stance to the class.

PEER CRITIQUE (I call this one Speed Crit - as in "speed dating"):

• I like to use this for progress critique when students are half way through an artwork and need feedback. 
• 6 stations are set up free of clutter. Each student has their artwork placed on the table with a form next to it. 
• The form is typed by me and has 3 prompts:
• Strengths
• Weaknesses
• Questions
• In addition are two more sections: "Student response to critique", "Teacher response to critique."

• Students must travel to each station as a group. They have 4 minutes at each station and move around the room in clock-wise formation. 
• Music is played to let students know when to write. Music stops and restarts to let students know when to switch stations.
• Student can choose to look at and critique any of the artworks at the table during the 4 minutes.
• They are moving as a group, but not working together as a group. Rather they address artwork and write individually. Often though, they are making verbal comments to each other as they look at the work.
• They must write 3 responses on the form next to the artwork. They must address the 3 prompts.
• All artwork must have responses on the form, so if students see a blank form, they have to make sure that someone writes on it.
• When students have visited all 6 stations, they return to their own station and artwork. They read what their classmates have written.
• Students spend remaining time writing their own reflective response to the critique of their work. 
• Artwork and critique forms are turned in to teacher.
• Teacher writes a response to the critique.
• This has proven very helpful in addressing weaknesses in the artwork. I noticed that students take a peer's constructive advice for improvement more often than listen to me tell them the same thing.
• This can be used with the SHoM framework as a topic prompt.

I find that this process takes the fear out of speaking out loud or being honest in the critique. Responses are anonymous and therefore less pressure. Students have written concrete advice to follow that may help with the finishing of their artwork. Their own response as well as the teacher's helps the student to process the critique and implement problem-solving solutions.
 
*art projects: Mixed Media Blitz and Materials Madness. I'll describe them in another blog post.

Critiquing the Xanos Way

I come from a Greek family. We love to debate and discuss, loudly and passionately. I grew up this way. I raised my four children this way. At our dinner table, in the car, on the couch; there is never a lack of animated discussion about whatever topic someone might introduce. So, as a teacher, I was confounded to find students struggling to discuss an issue or critique an artwork.  Most times, groups would sit quietly while I needled them for responses. Some groups would have one or two outspoken students that did all of the work. I tried guiding a large class setting, and I did all the talking. I tried breaking them into small groups with prompts. I got the same results. So I sat down one day and asked myself "what in the world was my family doing that my students were not?"

I realized that different people in a good debate group took on different roles. The Agitator/Challenger (my Dad and my son), the Supporter (me and daughter #2), the Lecturer (me or my daughter #3), the Questioner (daughter #1). This was interesting as I had not bothered to analyze family discussions before. I figured that these roles made for some great exchanges that would go round and round and often end up in a completely different place than where we started. I probably should add that my son also fulfills the role of the Joker. You know, the one who makes fun of people when they get too serious. I chose to leave that one out of my experiment as it usually results in someone screaming in our house.

I decided to try to replicate this process, using the roles I mentioned above. My hope was to spur the students into animated and eventually complex discussions. I figured the structure provided by role playing and topic prompts would enable students to work off of each other. 

• I teach high school and see students for 46 minutes, 5 days a week. 
• In the classrooms, I can have 25 - 35 students in one class. They sit in groups of 4 - 6 at "stations". They make their art there and have small group discussions/projects.  Each group has a "recorder". That is a person who writes a bullet list summary of the group discussion for extra credit. 
• I have used this particular technique to promote discussion for, 1. a debatable issue (ex. Is Graffiti Art?), 2. To critique a famous work of art, 3. To critique each others art (in progress and at the end), 4. To analyze movies or readings the class encountered. 
• I give prompts for topic consideration depending on the issue or type of art being discussed. I might have them focus on concepts, controversy, techniques, or aesthetic success. Along with the prompts they must make certain kinds of statements. In the past I gave them a list (along with the prompts) on paper. These statements must be: a) Challenge a speaker or address a weakness in the piece, b) Support a speaker or address a strength, c) Explain what one thinks is going on (in student critique this role must be the artist), d) Raise at least two questions. I let people choose which of these statements they will make as they travel through the discussion.
• The group starts with the Presenter/Lecturer: the student artist explains their work (or anyone can present the basic facts of the discussion topic.) After this, others in the group can Challenge, Question, or Support in any order they see fit. Anyone can also move back into Presenter mode if needed.
• Students are told that if someone raises a challenge or asks a question, they are allowed to respond. Often a supporter chimes in at this point and others will choose sides or even raise new points. When someone responds to a challenge they have two choices a) agree that there is a weakness and then the group moves into problem-solving mode, or b) disagree and the group moves into debate mode. 
• I found that students immediately took to having exciting and interesting discussions. While they were cautioned to keep it civil, the challengers and the questioners made people think and explain themselves. Responders often came up with interesting points that they would not bring up without a "gadfly" in the group. Supporters could bring up positive points that a Presenter might not think of and gave him/her a little back-up. People often switched roles as the discussion progressed. 
• At first I was worried this might incite cruel comments. However, I cannot remember any time that students got mean during a discussion. Usually, the Challengers are very diplomatic. Sometimes that role is hard for anyone to choose and I have to help. We do practice giving constructive criticism/disagreement early on. I explain that the Challenger's job is to help the group problem-solve a weakness and therefore find a way to turn it into a strength.
• After discussion, students sometimes present to the rest of the class, using the Recorder's notes. Other times, they just give the discussion notes to me and I read them. During the discussion I walk around and eavesdrop on the groups, offering help when needed.

So, this is one of the ways I get the students to talk. Unfortunately, we haven't done this once 2nd semester due to new and unusual mandates for quizzes, vocabulary, reading, writing, graphs, grammar, and math to be taught in my art class. I'm struggling just to keep the art-making happening. However, I plan to use it at least one last time with our final projects. I miss our lively group discussions. I'll bet the students do too!

When we critique, I'll video a session and post it. I hope this helps for now. 

Valerie Xanos

SHoM and Student/Teacher Performance Evaluations

All of us at CPS are thinking about what our teacher evaluations will be like next year. We will now be evaluated based on student performance.  These evaluations determine who keeps jobs and which programs are cut. Of course, we have no clue what that process is, yet must improve and develop curriculae to survive said process.
So many questions....
How will student performance be measured? What rubrics will be used? How do we measure data that is not only quantitative but also QUALITATIVE? How do we balance the numbers-driven goals of CPS and the experiential process we know works in the Art Studio? How can student performance be measured in a way to show the VALUE of art teacher performance and our own effectiveness beyond student attendance, grades, and core subject test scores? I am thinking of music, theater, and dance teacher evaluations in addition to the visual arts.

We at CPS need to be sure that the way we are evaluated reflects the way we need to teach. Our curriculum will have to respond to the ways student performance will be measured in addition to the way teacher performance will be measured. I don't know about you, but we are all a nervous wreck here at Curie. It is hard to develop a curriculum without the slightest idea of what those rubrics will be. Not to mention working under the threats made about what happens if we (and our students) don't perform according to the unknown rubric.

So I have been asking questions about WHO is developing these student and teacher evaluations. That same day I got some answers. There is a group being formed by CPS to work on it. Cool, let's get involved! Let's make sure art, music, theater, and dance teachers are on that committee.

Of course I couldn't help but think about how SHoM can play into this process. I have had such success at using this program for the first time this year. I will continue to use it. I wrote to Kate asking how can the data collection developed through SHoM help in our quest to evaluate art students and teachers fairly. She asked me to put these questions on the blog.

So here you are. What will we do? I hope to be part of the conversation and not just  a victim to what is decided for next year. I hope to be able to make use of what we have all learned this year for years to come. I hope to lessen my fear of the impending evaluation process, knowing that some of us from SHoM were part of the fair development of rubrics. We all want  to measure our own effectiveness without sacrificing the experiential quality of our instruction. How can we do this? I put this question out there... help.

Valerie Xanos