Monthly Mentor

Chapin Schnick (September)
Each month, a different member and NAEA awardee is the guest writer for the NAEA Monthly Mentor Blog. This month’s mentor is Chapin Schnick, who has 10 years of art teaching experience and more than 20 years experience in nonprofit volunteer service. In addition to a master’s degree in art education from the Maryland Institute College of Art and a bachelor’s degrees in art education and ceramics, with a minor in art history, from Purdue University, Schnick is currently pursuing a graduate certificate in nonprofit management at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). She lives in Martinsville, Indiana and works at The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. Click "GO" to read her full bio.

Go

Membership

Join the largest creative community established exclusively for visual arts educators, college professors, researchers, administrators, and museum educators.

Join NAEA Renew Membership

« Why isn’t there more play in art classrooms? | Main | Becoming an Art Room Advocate »

May 21, 2018

Planning for Play

From: Leslie Gates

In my first post, I proposed that given the structures of schooling, teachers have to work creatively and subversively to design curriculum that honors the artistic process. I have since described the importance of play and its suspicious absence in art education and want to provide some practical examples of how art educators might make overt plans for including play in our classes.

The National Visual Arts Standards directly identify play as essential in the generation and conceptualization of artistic ideas and work (Anchor Standard 1). Play is represented or suggested throughout the grade level standards, such as:

- VA:Cr1.1.K Engage in exploration and imaginative play with materials.
- VA:Cr1.1.1 Engage collaboratively in exploration and imaginative play with materials.
- VA:Cr1.1.7 Apply methods to overcome creative blocks.
- VA:Cr1.1.HSI Use multiple approaches to begin creative endeavors.

The standards can act as catalysts for lesson planning and assist teachers in defending the importance and value of such experiences, if necessary. 

Teachers interested in designing opportunities for play might want to consider how to frame play as inquiry and facilitate a debrief that helps students articulate what they have learned through play. Selma Wasserman’s (1988) Play – Debrief – Play model is one approach to do this and can be applied to learners of all ages.

Consider how allowing students to play with a material might be an alternative to students passively observing a teacher demonstrate a material or technique. Students could have ten minutes to explore a material with a question such as “What can this material do?” or “What reasons might an artist choose to use this material rather than another?” and then report out what they learned.

Another suggestion is to plan a unit based on artistic behavior, such as “Artists play.” Focusing the class on an artistic behavior using artists and resources I’ve mentioned in previous posts makes play not just the vehicle of learning, but also the content to be studied. I appreciate Wasserman’s (1992) unabashed promotion of such a model:

Is it possible that serious play is, in fact, the primary vehicle in which learning occurs? If that is the case, might we consider serious play at all stages of a students’ learning, from kindergarten through graduate school? Given the present climate in education, such a proposal is tantamount to heresy. But what the heck? If you’re sailing on the Titanic, you might as well go first class. (p. 133)

-LG

References
Wassermann, S. (1988). Teaching strategies. Play-debrief-replay: An instructional model for science. Childhood Education. 64(4), 232-34.
Wasserman, S. (1992). Serious play in the classroom: How messing around can win you the Nobel prize. Childhood Education, 68(3), 133-139.

Comments

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.