Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Exploring a British Columbia cultural centre : a focus for the secondary art curriculum 1983

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1983_A8 C37.pdf
UBC_1983_A8 C37.pdf [ 4.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0095827.json
JSON-LD: 1.0095827+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0095827.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0095827+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0095827+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0095827+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0095827.ris

Full Text

EXPLORING A BRITISH COLUMBIA CULTURAL CENTRE: A FOCUS FOR THE SECONDARY ART CURRICULUM BY LYNNE ALISON CARMICHAEL B .Ed . , The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Visual and Performing Arts in Education We accept th i s thes is as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Ju ly 1983 <c) Lynne A l i s o n Carmichael , 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS Department of \J-A- P A- fr- The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 (3/81) i i Abstract This study describes and explains an approach to the implementation of the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art curriculum. The project covered an intensive five month period of preparation and a fi v e week period of implementation. Particular emphasis has been placed on the use of l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres as p r a c t i c a l sources for materi a l s i n s a t i s f y i n g the Art Foundations l e a r n i n g outcomes. The program attempts to ide n t i f y and suggest possible solutions to problems experienced by both local cultural centres and school art educators. In particular, i t suggests possible types of materials needed by art educators to make the most effective use of their local arts centre. A teacher manual "More Than Meets the Eye" was devised to assist the teachers in the preparation of their classes for their v i s i t to the local c u l t u r a l centre. Individual student kits were also developed containing materials to focus pupil viewing at s p e c i f i c exhibits in the Richmond Arts Centre. The proposed l e a r n i n g outcomes suggested in the Secondary Art curriculum have served as signposts in the development of these materials. The value and p o t e n t i a l for using this approach to implementation of the Art Foundations component of the i i i Secondary Art curriculum was then explored with special emphasis on the s t a t i s i t i c a l data, and personal interviews conducted by the researcher. Results of the data collection indicated that this approach has potential to f a c i l i t a t e integrating the Art Foundations component with exhibits at the Richmond Arts Centre. The majority of the teachers and students as well as the various Co-ordinators expressed highly positive reactions to the project. Future c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s approach to the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art curriculm i s recommended. i v . CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i CONTENTS i v DEFINITIONS v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x C h a p t e r 1. INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY . . . . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e S t u d y 3 J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e S t u d y 3 S t a t e m e n t o f t h e P r o b l e m 6 S u b s i d i a r y R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s 7 I n i t i a l P r o p o s i t i o n s 8 R e s e a r c h D e s i g n 8 The S e t t i n g 8 P r o c e d u r e 9 L i m i t s o f t h e S t u d y 10 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y 10 2, DEVELOPMENT OF A CULTURAL CENTRE PROGRAM . . . . 12 C u l t u r a l C e n t r e s as E d u c a t o r s 12 V. Page Materials for Implementation 15 Planning the Program 17 3. FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM 21 The Program to be Evaluated 21 Evaluation Methodology 22 Objectives of the Evaluation 22 Researcher's Observations 2 3 4. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION 30 Results of the Co-ordinator's Evaluation 30 Effectiveness of the Program 32 Observations A r i s i n g from the Study 34 Recommendations 37 Conclusion 38 BIBLIOGRAPHY 41 APPENDICES I. Results of teacher and student questionnaires 43 II. Samples of correspondence 105 II I . The Teacher Manual, "More Than Meets the Eye," as tested, shelved with copy 1 i n Special Collections 109 v i . Definitions Curriculum - a set of guidelines that define an area of study. The guidelines generally i d e n t i f y the goals, objectives, and learning outcomes to be achieved by students, l i s t the resource materials that teachers w i l l require (e.g., books, hardware), outline some of the a c t i v i t i e s that teachers and students should go through ( i . e . , a r t i c u l a t e teaching and learning s t r a t e g i e s ) , and give teachers some idea of how to evaluate both the students and themselves. A curriculum w i l l usually also c l a r i f y the as- sumptions underlying the goals, the objectives, the learning outcomes, the use of resources, the a c t i v i t i e s , and the evalua- tion procedures (Implementation Services, Ministry of Education, 1982). Art Foundations - the core of the art curriculum. It i s i n - tended to provide students with opportunities to review and develop a basic understanding of art (p. 15). "Its mastery i s required of a l l students entering a secondary school a r t program for the f i r s t time" (Curriculum Guide/Resource, 1982, p. 7). The B r i t i s h Columbian Guide outlines the importance of taking into consideration the in d i v i d u a l differences that occur i n any given teaching s i t u a t i o n while exploring the outcomes of the Secondary Art Curriculum. Emphasis i s placed on the mastery of basic s k i l l s of a physical and mental nature. v i i . Imagery - i s the creation of v i s u a l images both i n the imag- ination and i n a work of art. It i s central to vi s u a l learning. It exists i n both the mental process and the product of a r t . There are many levels of imagery, yet a l l are products of the imagination—products created through observation by the student or from his or her memory. The developers of the new curriculum make a strong case for focusing on the development of personal imagery by the students. I t i s considered important, for art without an image i s not ar t . Yet i t i s also acknowledged that a " f u l l e r understanding of (imagery) depends on knowledge gained through e f f e c t i v e education preparation" (Secondary Curriculum, 1982, p. 7). Art Centre - i n many communities i n B r i t i s h Columbia, l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres consist of a loose l i a i s o n between a l o c a l history museum and a community sponsored art gallery or art centre, an establishment by and for a community where art l e s - sons are taught, the work of l o c a l a r t i s t s i s shown, and other art interests of the community are accommodated. Museum - an i n s t i t u t i o n where a r t i s t i c and educational mater- i a l s are exhibited to the public. There are three p r i n c i p a l types: 1. Art Museums: A museum devoted to one or more of the art f i e l d s dealing with objects and with an emphasis on the ownership and preservation of important c o l l e c t i o n s (Oriental Ceramics, Sculpture, Painting, e t c . ) . v i i i . 2 . History Museums: I l l u s t r a t e the h i s t o r i c a l growth and development of an area, .event or time. Their mandate i s to c o l l e c t , preserve, and exhibit for public benefit. 3. Science and Technology Museums: These museums preserve and exhibit displays on the natural sciences and technology. Gallery - are divided into two broad categories. Art Museums (see above) and Art Centres (see above) are the two main types which are found i n l o c a l communities. i x . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to extend my thanks to a number of people who helped i n the preparation of the thesis and the teacher's manual More Than Meets the Eye. I es p e c i a l l y want to thank my Thesis Head, Dr. Rosalie Staley, for her time, encouragement and enthusiastic support for this project, Dr. Graeme Chalmers for his clearsighted c r i t i c i s m of the presentation of thi s thesis, and Prof. Penny Gouldstone for her creative energies and u n f a i l i n g backing. Developing this idea was made,possible by the physical sup- port offered by the Richmond School Board. Without t h e i r aid and e s p e c i a l l y the enthusiastic contribution of Ms. K i t Grauer, Art Co-ordinator for the Richmond School Board, this study could not have been accomplished. I appreciate the cooperation of Mrs. Page Hope-Smith, act- ing Co-ordinator for the Richmond Art Gallery and Mr. John Kyte, acting Curator of the Richmond Museum and Archives. Financial support for t h i s study was provided i n part by a Summer Graduate Fellowship. I wish to acknowledge the patience of my parents who have encouraged me i n a l l my endeavours. My gratitude i s due my husband, Andrew Carmichael, and sons, Stuart and Mark, who offered continued support and encouragement during the preparation, presentation and completion of this thesis. 1. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY Introduction The B r i t i s h Columbia Art Curriculum Summer Inst i t u t e , Grades 8 - 1 2 , held at the University of B.C., 1982, brought together a r t teachers, art administrators, representatives of the Ministry of Education Program Implementation Services, stud- ents, and professors of art education as well as pr a c t i c i n g a r t i s t s . From t h i s cross-section, there emerged a view of the art education system i n B.C. that recognized the po s i t i v e aspects of the art a c t i v i t i e s presently i n force. The B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary Art Curriculum has many ex- ce l l e n t features. The goals and objectives, as stated, give a strong mandate to the art educator to implement a comprehensive art program. An attempt has been made to more equably balance the f i e l d s of art studio, art history and art c r i t i c i s m . Prev- iously, the emphasis on these three areas has been l e f t to the ind i v i d u a l teacher's d i s c r e t i o n . Art educators are entrusted to produce programs that enable students to focus on s p e c i f i c areas i n art and understand what they see. To take possession of this v i s u a l heritage, there i s a need to teach strategic s k i l l s that include both the c r i t i c a l and aesthetic components of art (Feldman, Quarterly Quorum, University of B.C., October, 1982). 2. Planners of implementation have an obligation to do more than devise formulas or models for approaching art and art c r i t - icism. There i s a need to have a s o l i d grounding i n the under- standing of the nature of art and i t s potential enhancement of the quality of l i f e for students. This thesis intends to dem- onstrate that by examining the sources of varying philosophies as exposed through the l i t e r a t u r e on art education and museum education, art teachers and art education co-ordinators w i l l be able to connect the goals and objectives of the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art curriculum to the r e a l i t i e s of teaching a r t i n the classroom. In order to achieve the goals set out i n the B.C. Secondary Art Guide 8 - 1 2 Curriculum Guide and Content Resources (1983), more i s required than a l i s t of what to teach. There i s a need to explore the philosophical roots of these goals. To thi s end, art educators and planners of curriculum implementation should give closer attention to the philosophical models of art prog- rams. Art educators need to have knowledge and understanding of the means at th e i r disposal. By investigating the p r a c t i c a l applications of the o r e t i c a l approaches to art education' and the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art curriculum spec- i f i c a l l y , we can open a doorway on new p o s s i b i l i t i e s for art education i n our future. 3. O b j e c t i v e s o f the Study 1. To d i s c o v e r the extent to which l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s serve as p r a c t i c a l sources f o r m a t e r i a l s i n s a t i s f y i n g the a r t program's goals i n the implementation o f the A r t Foundations component of the Secondary A r t c u r r i c u l u m . 2. To i d e n t i f y means to communicate i n the most e f f e c t i v e manner between the v a r i o u s f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d i n our communities and the sc h o o l system. 3. To r e s o l v e problems t h a t a r t museum educators and sc h o o l a r t educators experience when t r y i n g to r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r own goals and o b j e c t i v e s with those of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s . 4 . To show t h a t , by g i v i n g students i n d i v i d u a l k i t s con- t a i n i n g m a t e r i a l on the p a r t i c u l a r e x h i b i t they are about to view, t h e i r viewing experience may be e n r i c h e d i n s p e c i f i c ways. 5. To i n v e s t i g a t e the types of m a t e r i a l s t h a t teachers need i n order to achieve c l o s e r l i a i s o n s with l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s i n t h e i r communities. J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the Study In order to j u s t i f y a program combining l o c a l c u l t u r a l 4. centres and the Secondary Art Foundations, there i s a need to explore the philosophical basis for the model to be used i n the implementation. When a researcher develops and tests a p i l o t program i t i s necessary to have an awareness of the o r e t i c a l points of view to achieve greater precision and c l a r i t y i n spec- i f y i n g constructs (Zimmerman, 1982). Deciding the basis for a program through the study of the art education l i t e r a t u r e may involve a degree of personal choice. To be creditable the selec- tion must f i r s t survey the f i e l d of art education to ensure that the modes chosen w i l l most re a d i l y promote the desired outcomes. Planners of curriculum implementation need to understand what constitutes an i n t e l l i g e n t merger between research and practice i n arts education. It i s thi s focus on art models that Broudy has explored i n his career as a theoretician on ar t . He has pursued a concern for "rigorous methods of analysis and reconstruction of theory by eliminating and extending constructs" (Zimmerman, 1982, p. 39). This drive for a basis for aesthetic education includes the premises put forth by Feldman (196 7, 19 72), yet extends beyond a formal approach to the study of art. He includes not only formal and technical properties but sensory and expressive as well. Broudy's theory i s best summed up i n his published theoret- i c a l work, Enlightened Cherishing. Drawing on a d e f i n i t i o n of art as defined by Silverman (1983), Broudy suggests the commun- i t y of art experts should compile a body of work determined as 5. a r t . Without a s e l e c t i o n , he f e e l s there i s no mandate to de- vote school "resources to making happen what would happen any- way" (Broudy, 1978), through exposure to the popular a r t s . The conductor of c u r r i c u l u m implementation should guide the s e l e c - t i o n of the works to be used i n teaching. These works would d i r e c t students through experiences which i n c l u d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s to experience the l e a r n i n g outcomes s p e c i f i e d as being c e n t r a l to the A r t Curriculum. A well-developed a r t program w i l l i n c l u d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r students to see and f e e l v i s u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; to develop imagination and personal imagery; to engage i n the p r a c t i c a l production of a r t work; to appreciate the a r t of others; to develop an informed a e s t h e t i c and c r i t i c a l awareness; and to evaluate t h e i r own work and that of others. (Curriculum Guide, 1983, p. 10) These experiences r e q u i r e an awareness on the p a r t of the edu- c a t o r of techniques t h a t "increase student s e n s i t i v i t y to per- cep t i o n of the sensory, formal, expressive and t e c h n i c a l proper- t i e s and the e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c functions of works of a r t " (Zimmerman, 1982, p. 42). Having s t a t e d h i s premise, Broudy develops h i s theory by en l a r g i n g on the importance of the teacher d i r e c t e d connection to the students' approach to a r t . This i n v o l v e s teaching stud- ents to make judgments. Such an approach to the a e s t h e t i c mode of experience takes an in-depth view of a work of a r t . Through t e a c h e r - d i r e c t e d a c t i o n s , the p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the 6. theory i s i n i t i a t e d , to where an understanding of the " c u l t i v a t e d a u t h e n t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n of works of a r t " (Zimmerman, 1982) occurs through s e e i n g as an a r t i s t , j u d g i n g as an a r t c r i t i c and e x p e r i - encing as a connoisseur, as d e f i n e d by E i s n e r (1979). These processes culminate i n "enlightened c h e r i s h i n g . " Broudy's theory may have flaws (Zimmerman, 1982), but what- ever d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s may have o c c u r r e d i n h i s approach to teach- i n g the a p p r e c i a t i o n and the c r i t i c i s m of a r t , they do not s e r i - o u s l y d e t r a c t from the i n t e n t of h i s humanistic theory. In h i s address to the A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m Devel- opment, Houston, Texas, March 20, 1977, he r e - a s s e r t s t h a t "aes- t h e t i c experience i s b a s i c because i t i s a primary form of experience on which a l l c o g n i t i o n , judgement, and a c t i o n depend" (Broudy, 1977). I f educators t h i n k of the l e a r n e r as an open system able to engage i n a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f i n p u t , c r e a t i n g order from the i n f o r m a t i o n surrounding him (Ferguson, 1980), a r t e d u c a t i o n , and s p e c i f i c a l l y the implementation of the A r t Foun- d a t i o n s , i s approached from a f l e x i b l e p o i n t of view and makes use of s e v e r a l o f Broudy's i d e a s . Statement of the Problem The major q u e s t i o n t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h e r asks i s how c l o s e r l i a i s o n between schools and l o c a l c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , such as a r t g a l l e r i e s and museums, might e f f e c t i v e l y promote the 7. learning outcomes that a r t educators are seeking i n th e i r cur- riculum implementations. This researcher has chosen to investigate l i n k s between the program goals of the schools and t h e i r a rt programs with the goals and resources of c u l t u r a l centres. The vehicle for prog- ressing towards these goals w i l l be the new Secondary Art cur- riculum, with special attention to the Art Foundations component. Local c u l t u r a l centres o f f e r a r i c h source of materials on which to b u i l d the Art Foundations component of the new 8 - 1 2 Art Curriculum. P i l o t i n g an approach to the course through l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres has provided an opportunity for observing data and c o l l e c t i n g data. Subsidiary Research Questions The researcher's p r i o r i t i e s may more c l e a r l y be understood i f they are expressed as research questions. The study has been developed from three of these: 1. What are the stated goals and philosophies that charac- t e r i z e a r t education i n art centres and art education i n schools? 2. To what extent are the goals and philosophies of the two kinds of i n s t i t u t i o n s harmonious? 3. What adjustments could be made to the implementation processes to ensure the most e f f e c t i v e introduction of the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Curriculum when using l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres? 8. These research questions, as developed from this research- er's i n i t i a l approach to considering ways of implementing the Art Foundations course using l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres, r e f l e c t my position and current knowledge. I n i t i a l Propositions The proposed Art Curriculum for B.C. offers an opportunity for a rt educators to explore new approaches to art education i n B r i t i s h Columbia schools. There are four major learning outcomes presented i n the new 8 - 1 2 Art Curriculum. These are: develop- ing personal imagery, investigation of h i s t o r i c a l and contempor- ary developments i n the arts, learning the elements and p r i n - c i p l e s of design, and investigating reasoned c r i t i c i s m . I proposed to develop materials to be used to focus on these four areas. They were s p e c i f i c a l l y designed for use by students during t h e i r v i s i t s to a l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre i n B r i t i s h Colum- bia. My proposition was that u t i l i z a t i o n of our l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres offered a unique complement to the Art Foundations com- ponent i n the classroom for focusing on the above-mentioned learning outcomes. Research Design The Setting. Four Secondary Schools i n the Richmond School D i s t r i c t were used to test the developed materials. These 9. materials focused on a current exhibit at a l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre. Data was co l l e c t e d by observing class v i s i t s to the Gallery, interviews and questionnaires. Procedure. The classes v i s i t e d the Richmond Arts Centre i n Richmond i n the week of May 15, 198 3, s p e c i f i c a l l y to v i s i t the Gallery's show, "Images," displaying the works of f i v e Lower Mainland a r t i s t s . There were approximately 20 students i n each of the four classes. My role was as l i a i s o n between the Rich- mond School D i s t r i c t , the Arts Centre, and the teachers, while supplying d i r e c t i o n for the viewing of the exhibit by the stud- ents. This also included the issuing of materials to the teach- ers, such as s l i d e sets of the a r t i s t ' s works and a teacher's manual d e t a i l i n g possible approaches to the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre with suggestions for lessons. This approach was designed to a s s i s t the teachers i n preparing th e i r classes to gain the most from t h e i r viewing opportunity, both before and afte r the event. In order to f a c i l i t a t e a r i c h viewing experience, i n d i v i d - ual student k i t s were also prepared. Information included: biographies on the a r t i s t s gained from personal interviews by the researcher, a vocabulary l i s t adapted from the Curriculum Guide, worksheets on the art exhibit and the history museum, and miscellaneous information on the Richmond Arts Centre. The stud- ents used the k i t s on t h e i r v i s i t as a source of information and as a writing surface while answering the directed study questions which provided a focus to t h e i r viewing experience. 10. L i m i t s o f t h e S t u d y 1. The s a m p l i n g f o r t h i s s t u d y was t a k e n f r o m f o u r Richmond S e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s . 2 . My t e s t i n g i n v o l v e d i n t e r v i e w s w i t h t h e t e a c h e r s and a b l i n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e t e a c h e r s t o t h e i r s t u d e n t s b o t h b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e a t t h e i r l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e . 3. The s t u d y was l i m i t e d t o a f i v e week p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h t h e a r t c l a s s e s were a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o j e c t , w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e v i s i t t o t h e l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e . 4. The r e s u l t s a r e p o s s i b l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h e Richmond S c h o o l D i s t r i c t ' s a c t i v e i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e V i s u a l A r t s , t h e A r t C o - o r d i n a t o r — K i t G r a u e r - - b e i n g a dynamic f o r c e on t h e a r t t e a c h e r s and t h e i r p r o g r a m s . S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s s t u d y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e f f e c t s o f u s i n g l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e A r t F o u n d a t i o n s component o f t h e S e c o n d a r y A r t c u r r i c u l u m , l i e s i n s h o w i n g a r t e d u c a t o r s and l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e c o - o r d i n a t o r s t h a t t h e r e i s v a l u e i n p r o v i d i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l o r e f a c e t s o f a r t u s i n g i n d i v i d u a l handbooks w h i l e v i s i t i n g l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s . The v a l i d i t y o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t may be t e s t e d by e x a m i n i n g results of the questionnaires and interviews with participants Students reacted p o s i t i v e l y to an i n t e r a c t i v e experience at th e i r l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre, while the curriculum remained cen tered on developing the learning outcomes as required by the Secondary Art Guide 8 - 1 2 . This approach also offers an op- portunity for students to develop an awareness of t h e i r commun i t y and share with t h e i r peers a creative a l t e r n a t i v e to the confines of the school art program. Chapter 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CULTURAL CENTRE PROGRAM Cultural Centres as Educators The Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art Curric- ulum has a sp e c i a l significance since i t s mastery i s required of a l l students i n the f i r s t year of the Secondary School Art Program. A study of the current l i t e r a t u r e from journals such as the CSEA Annual Journal, Studies i n Art Education, and Art Education indicates possible approaches to the use of the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres i n a program designed to achieve this object- ive. While the Art Foundations component i s prerequisite for further study i n art i t also stands as an independent course. As such i t offers an opportunity to the art educator to i n t r o - duce i t for i t s own sake (Curriculum Guide, 1983, p. 27). MacDonnell (1980) outlines an art museum educator's concern with the perceived gap between art education for the school c h i l d and the lack of apparent preparation of the teacher who i s to teach i t . This deficiency also encompasses a lack of awareness of the need for co-operation between the co-ordinators i n the l o c a l g a l l e r i e s and museums, and the school with regards to financing and implementation of v i s i t s to the art museum. Newson (1982) addresses the need for art museum and school-based art educators to j o i n together i n looking for ways to increase funding to prevent many of the current and future problems fac- ing both groups. The art museum should not take on the t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for teaching children how to see and to that end Newsom c i t e s several examples of art museums currently working only with school groups who are well prepared for the i r v i s i t s and who commit themselves to returning for several v i s i t s to the museum. Through this in-depth approach, the art museum co- ordinator and the school a r t co-ordinator come to know each other and this i n turn leads to a "better understanding both of the people and of the learning process" (Newsom, 1975). Crucial to the program are the people who are involved i n running the events, whether in-house or as v i s i t o r s to a cla s s - room. They must be congenial and well trained i n the materials on display. The exhibits that are on display are of l i t t l e value i f they are not reinforced by the entire school s e t t i n g . The classroom teacher must provide a coherent program that i s able to incorporate or spin-off from the v i s i t . For example, after a v i s i t to the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Museum of Anthropology, there are a multitude of areas which could be ex- plored i n the curriculum: reading Indian Legends, Dance and Movement, Indian Games, and art lessons on the theme of Indian l i f e as seen through t h e i r masks, costumes and symbolism, are but a few. As well, there must be a working rapport between the s t a f f of the c u l t u r a l centre and the school. Not only i s i t important to f e e l welcome when on a v i s i t , but there must be relevance 14. between what i s being presented and what i s needed to f u l f i l l the curriculum requirements. I t i s up to the art educator i n the school to ensure that the c u l t u r a l centre s t a f f are aware of the needs of the program being offered i n the Secondary Art program, i n p a r t i c u l a r the Art Foundations. The school system as well as school teachers need to act- i v e l y demonstrate that they wish to be equal partners. Ott (19 80) addresses the issue of art education i n art museums. He refers to his travels i n the world of museums and relates how g r a t i f y i n g i t i s to him that there i s now an active movement to promote art education by art museums around the globe. In sev- e r a l c u l t u r a l centres, he states, the educational role i s often placed well above the t r a d i t i o n a l roles of c o l l e c t i n g , e x h i b i t - ing and preserving. The sensory-based approaches to encounterin art, which are emerging in art centres, do not mean that t r a d i - t i o n a l methods are being neglected. Slide shows, lectures and art exhibits, showing periods of time, art processes and art techniques are s t i l l a c t i v e l y a part of the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s reper- t o i r e . The trend i s towards creative implementation of educa- tion programs and the exchange of ideas between educators (Ott, 19 80). To t h i s end, the art centre i s to be considered more than an art resource. Only when i t i s considered an art c l a s s - room w i l l i t be possible to achieve i t s f u l l e s t u t i l i z a t i o n . This partnership between educators and c u l t u r a l centre s t a f f can lead to multi-dimensional programs that deal with expression f e e l i n g and personal interpretation plus reasoned c r i t i c i s m , 15. emphasizing the teacher as the catalyst. The art experience offered by t h i s form of program opens the richness of the c u l t - ural centre to a complete a rt experience (Ott, 1980). The s t a f f of the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre must know the aud- ience that they are dealing with. They must r e a l i s t i c a l l y t a i l o r the scope of th e i r program to available resources and to the students who w i l l view the available materials. The teacher planning a t r i p may not have any clear picture of the resources available unless through word of mouth or previous v i s i t s . Sheets sent out by art co-ordinators are by necessity li m i t e d from lack of funding. Certainly whatever planning a teacher i s able to do, whatever p r e - v i s i t contact that can be made and whatever afte r v i s i t follow-up i s possible, once i s better than no v i s i t at a l l . Materials for Implementation The basic materials for implementation consist of the Rich- mond School D i s t r i c t , the Richmond Arts Centre, the Secondary Art Guide 8 - 1 2 Curriculum Guide/Content Resources, and the researcher. The Richmond School D i s t r i c t covers a geographic area situated immediately south of Vancouver. The D i s t r i c t i n - cludes 36 Elementary schools, 6 Junior Secondary schools and 5 Senior Secondary schools. The population mix has rapidly changed i n the l a s t ten years with an i n f l u x of many students who have English as a second language. The economic conditions are f a i r l y 16. prosperous with the region being d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y affected by proximity to a major metropolis, Vancouver. Richmond School Board administers the school d i s t r i c t . The Art teachers are co-ordinated by K i t Grauer, who runs an ener- getic series of programs to encourage the Arts i n Richmond schools. This includes "Artathon," held yearly at the Richmond Arts Centre at which a l l elementary and secondary students are in v i t e d with t h e i r teachers to attempt various a r t projects i n an informal relaxed atmosphere. The Richmond Arts Centre consists of a co-ordinating body, administered by the Community Arts Council. An Art Gallery and a History Museum are contained i n the Arts Centre, administrated at the moment by acting co-ordinators u n t i l such time as perman- ent co-ordinators can be hired. The Secondary Art Guide 8 - 1 2 Curriculum Guide and Content Resources document has recently been brought into e f f e c t i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Several d i s t r i c t s have already implemented the curriculum. In Richmond, the art teachers have been aware of the new curriculum and have had several opportun- i t i e s to explore the materials, for example, at the Summer Institute held at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia i n the sum- mer of 1982. The Guide i s intended to replace previous curriculum guides. I t was developed to r e f l e c t the expectations set forth i n the Aims of Education for Elementary and Secondary Schools i n B r i t i s h Columbia (19 83). A new area which was developed i n the Guide involves the Art Foundations component. Its mastery i s required of a l l students i n t h e i r f i r s t year of the secondary school art program and i s a prerequisite for further study i n Art Education. The course i s structured to encourage students to develop com- petence i n approaching the a r t s . The researcher i s a graduate student who has spent several years exploring c u l t u r a l centres i n c i t i e s around the world. After attending the Summer Institute at the University of B r i t - ish Columbia, 1982 the researcher perceived a need for secondary a r t teachers to have a concrete plan to a s s i s t the implementa- tion of the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Guide. The use of a teachers 1 manual and student k i t s provides a focus for the educator when i n s t r u c t i n g students both during class time and on v i s i t s to l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres. The researcher developed t h i s material from d i r e c t input by the teachers and from her personal experience as a teacher. The format cl o s e l y follows the Secondary Guide. I t i s supplementary to the Guide as i t deals with a s p e c i f i c application of the Art Foundations component i n a l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre. Planning the Program Extensive preparations were necessary i n developing the pro- gram. This section documents the techniques used by the re- searcher to set up a j o i n t venture between the Richmond School Board and the Richmond Arts Centre. I t i s important to r e a l i z e that from the beginning, the researcher has envisioned her role 18. as a l i a i s o n between the two i n s t i t u t i o n s . What follows i s an explanation of the steps taken i n implementing the program "More Than Meets the Eye." The reasons for developing such a program have been dealt with i n the previous section of t h i s chapter. But the reader should bear i n mind that the actions taken to prepare for the v i s i t s to the Richmond Arts Centre d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t the views expressed on the need to expose young people to o r i g i n a l works of a rt so that they may see the q u a l i t a t i v e differences between o r i g i n a l a rt and photographic reproductions. This exposure en- sures that they learn the vocabulary of the eye, a lesson that can only be learned f i r s t hand. This f i r s t hand viewing i s a preparation for an adulthood as users and viewers of a r t , plac- ing into context art and man's relat i o n s h i p to the arts (Zeller, 1983) . The f i r s t step involved approaching the Richmond School Board. This i n i t i a l introduction of myself and my concept for using l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres i n the implementation of the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art curriculum for grades 8 - 1 0 was met with enthusiasm. Mr. Ken Morris, Supervisor - Administration confirmed the Richmond School Board's interest i n the i n i t i a l concept and suggested that the researcher work with Ms. K i t Grauer, Art Co-ordinator, i n planning the d e t a i l s of the p i l o t project'(see Appendix I I ) . K i t Grauer was extremely supportive of the project and gave the researcher ample scope to develop a l l facets of the program. The physical support included use of paper duplicating, 19. laminating, c o l l a t i n g and binding f a c i l i t i e s . Assistance of this nature was invaluable when preparing a limited run of twenty-five teacher's manuals and student materials for 80 par- t i c i p a n t s . The Administration of the Richmond School Board kept them- selves informed of the progress of the project. The Art Co- ordinator, Grauer, gave a presentation of the proposed project at the Board of Management's weekly meeting. This involved an introduction to the concept of Local Cultural Centres and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l value to the Secondary Art curriculum as well as a preview of the teacher's manual and discussion of the proposed materials being prepared by the researcher for the students. The presentation was warmly received and the Board supported i n p r i n c i p l e the innovative approach to a l o c a l resource. The second phase of the project was the introduction of the researcher to the Acting Co-ordinator of the Richmond Art Gallery and the Acting Curator of the Richmond Museum. The introduction of the researcher took place at a meeting at the Richmond Arts Centre, the home of both. Mrs. Page Hope-Smith, Acting Co-ordin- ator, and Mr. John Kyte, Acting Curator, had divergent views as to the value of the proposed project. Mrs. Page Hope-Smith was very enthusiastic and offered her complete support. After exam- ining the art show schedule for 19 8 3 i t was decided that IMAGES would be a good choice on which to focus the project. This show was i n v i t a t i o n a l . Five B.C. a r t i s t s from the lower mainland were chosen to display t h e i r views of the fusion between the outer 20. r e a l i t y and the inner r e a l i t y of the a r t i s t , i n personal ex- pressions. It was decided that the researcher would contact the a r t i s t s d i r e c t l y to acquire the biographical information which would be pertinent to the project. This approach to the a r t i s t and the students was an area that Mrs. Page Hope-Smith had been intending to develop but due to lack of funds and perm- anent art g a l l e r y s t a f f , had not been able to implement. There are obvious differences i n philosophy between the two Richmond Arts Centre personnel. This i s as much the r e s u l t of personality differences as concern for the stated objectives of each of the f a c i l i t i e s . Mr. John Kyte questioned the value of introducing the students to art concepts using the History Museum's displays. After a discussion of the researcher's as- sumptions as to the value of t h i s proposed study, i t became ob- vious that the Curator was concerned that the Museum's ac q u i s i - tions should be approached as a serious c o l l e c t i o n . Whereas Mrs. Hope-Smith had a relaxed approach to the stated objectives of the Richmond Art Gallery, and was w i l l i n g to explore various avenues for achieving them, Mr. Kyte was more reserved. His response r e f l e c t e d a l i f e - t i m e career i n the car- ing for, and the preserving and c o l l e c t i n g of a r t i f a c t s for d i s - play i n museums across Canada. He stated that u n t i l recently, he had had l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n exploring avenues for education programs. After a private tour through the g a l l e r y , i n which he expressed his regard for the materials on display, we had an opportunity to explore mutual interests and views on the s o c i a l value of c o l l e c t i o n s such as that of the Richmond History Museum. Chapter 3 FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM The Program to be Evaluated The teacher's manual, "More Than Meets the Eye," and re- lated student materials were prepared during the winter and spring of 198 3 and tested i n B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary schools during the period May 1, 1983 to June 1, 1983. Four secondary schools were selected for p i l o t t e s t i n g purposes and were pro- vided with a copy of the teacher's manual, "More Than Meets the Eye," and related materials for classroom and f i e l d use during a f i v e week evaluation period. In preparation for t h i s project i t was necessary to ap- proach a school board for assistance i n obtaining permission to contact teachers who would be w i l l i n g to participate' i n the t r i a l t esting. It was then important to maintain close contact with the i n d i v i d u a l teachers to ascertain what they f e l t were t h e i r program strengths and needs as regards the implementation of the new Art Foundations course i n the Secondary Art curriculum. The time constraints on each teacher's program necessitated that each timetable of student a c t i v i t i e s be i n d i v i d u a l i z e d . While main- tain i n g f l e x i b i l i t y , the timetable also had to f i t into the time span of the chosen show to be viewed at the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre. The researcher also had to be extremely f l e x i b l e , as a p a r t i c i - pant and observer i n the process. Evaluation Methodology Several evaluation procedures were adopted i n order to pro- vide an assessment of the program. Procedures included use of teacher and student questionnaires (Appendix I ) , teacher i n t e r - views conducted by the evaluator, on-the-spot interviews with students during t h e i r tour of the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre, per- sonal observation by the evaluator during these a c t i v i t i e s , and use of art curator and museum curator questionnaires. Objectives of the Evaluation The intent of the teacher's manual, "More Than Meets the Eye," was to assemble materials which would s a t i s f y the learning outcomes of the B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary Art Foundations course. The evaluation, therefore, i s directed at ascertaining i f these learning outcomes have been promoted. Furthermore, the formative evaluation provides information on the strengths, weak- nesses, organization and concerns of a program and i s therefore a means for improving the implementation of such a program. I t was hoped, therefore, that the t r i a l t e sting program would pro- vide useful information on the o v e r a l l s u i t a b i l i t y of the manual and materials for use i n B r i t i s h Columbia secondary art programs. Researcher's Observations Appendix I con t a i n s the summarized r e s u l t s o f both student and teacher q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The r e s u l t s c o n t a i n a numerical l i s t i n g o f p r e f e r e n c e s , w r i t t e n statements by both students and te a c h e r s , and a summary i n which a l l numerical r e s u l t s have been t a b u l a t e d to give a broad overview of the r e s u l t o f t h i s p i l o t program. The r e s e a r c h e r took the o p p o r t u n i t y throughout the imple- mentation o f the model to speak with the v a r i o u s p a r t i c i p a n t s . Interviews were conducted with the teachers b e f o r e , d u r i n g , and a f t e r the a c t u a l c l a s s v i s i t to the Richmond A r t s Centre. T h e i r responses on these o c c a s i o n s r e f l e c t e d some general concerns. A l l f our teachers agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s p r o j e c t because of a d e s i r e to take p a r t with t h e i r students i n the implementation o f a p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f an approach to the A r t Foundations u s i n g the Richmond A r t s Centre. They a l l expres- sed the o p i n i o n t h a t t h e i r students would b e n e f i t from exposure to the m a t e r i a l s to be found i n the l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e . Teacher A was i n t e r e s t e d i n the p r o j e c t , as an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r teachers to l e a r n , on the job, a p r a c t i c a l approach to a concept. Teacher C expressed t h i s as a d e s i r e on b e h a l f o f the students, to know more about why something i s good or bad a r t . In g e n e r a l a l l expressed the view t h a t r e a l l y l o o k i n g a t a r t works and being a b l e to d i s c u s s the q u a l i t i e s of the a r t works i s important f o r stu d e n t s . Teacher B enlarged on this theme. The hope was expressed that t h i s program would improve the student's a b i l i t y to under- stand what constitutes art and therefore help students grow i n appreciation and develop c r i t i c a l s k i l l s . Giving students a focus for a galle r y v i s i t was a common theme throughout the interviews and remained one of the strong f o c i i for a l l the teachers. When asked to anticipate what might be perceived as an o v e r a l l weakness of the program, i t was Teacher A who suc- c i n c t l y remarked that t h i s program would be a beginning rather than an end i n i t s e l f . After several meetings with the teachers, both i n a group and i n d i v i d u a l l y , i t became clear that a l l desired material guidance i n preparation for the i r classes' v i s i t to the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre. Concern was expressed on the va r i a t i o n i n a b i l - i t y of a l l students to express themselves equally i n c r i t i c a l terms and just what would be expected from them during the v i s i t . The teacher's manual, "More Than Meets the Eye," i s a d i r e c t out- come of these expressed concerns. Each teacher made unique application of the manual. Teacher C took materials out of the booklet and d i r e c t l y u t i l i z e d them with the class. Teacher B enriched the program by acquiring large blow-ups of the o r i g i n a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s and encouraging students to explore the concepts outlined i n the manual, concepts which are d i r e c t l y connected to the Art Foundations course i n the Secondary Art Guide. Teacher A did not seem to make this connec- tio n , but assured the researcher than the manual was of personal value. I t gave an opportunity to view the implied relationships between the various concepts. Teacher A suggested that to see the proposed examples c l a r i f i e d the d i r e c t i o n the Art Founda- tions course might take. It became apparent during the actual v i s i t s that the proto- type program required adjustment to provide either more time for the v i s i t or less material to cover. In the researcher's con- cern to ensure that a l l the relevant material was introduced, the r e s u l t i n g work sheets became too long. They required of the students a dedicated approach to complete them i n an hour and a half. While a l l students appeared to enjoy the v i s i t , they were of varying a b i l i t i e s , and many were not able to complete th e i r note taking before they were required to return to the bus. This was a common weakness which each class experienced. At the same time, i t ensured that a l l students were f u l l y occupied for the hour and a h a l f . The researcher did i n s t r u c t the groups, as they entered the c u l t u r a l centre complex, that the sheets were to be a guide for focusing t h e i r viewing and were not a test. However, students appeared orientated to testing. Several asked about the marks. This i s an area that each teacher must introduce i n his or her own classrooms. Included i s a diary of events which records the researcher's movements i n contacting participants. It i l l u s t r a t e s the close l i a i s o n which was necessary for program implementation. DIARY OF EVENTS FEBRUARY 24, 19 8 3 9:15 am Met with Ms. K i t Grauer, Richmond School Board Art Co-ordinator, to discuss the p o s s i b i l i t y of doing a p i l o t program with Secondary Art teachers. The project i s to be designed to show whether closer l i a i s o n between schools and l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres w i l l promote the responses that art educators are seeking i n th e i r implementation of the grade 8-9 Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art Curriculum. MARCH 1, 19 8 3 Letter from the Richmond School Board grant- ing permission to work i n consultation with Ms. K i t Grauer. MARCH 3, 1983 11:00 am Ms. K i t Grauer gave a lecture to our Design class about her views on Art and Art C r i t i c i s m i n the classroom. MARCH 7, 1983 10:30 am Held a j o i n t meeting with Mrs. Page Hope- Smith, Acting Co-ordinator for the Richmond Art Gallery and Mr. John Kyte, Acting Curator for the Richmond Museum. MARCH 15, 19 8 3 10:00 am Met with Ms. K i t Grauer to discuss p h i l o s - ophy and approaches to implementation of the Art Foundations course. This was an opportunity to discuss assumptions as to the value of this study. At thi s meeting I received the names of four teachers who might l i k e to help i n the project: Dorothy Brogan, Donna Grieser, Allan Bone, and Annelies Reeves. Went to v i s i t with each teacher and introduce myself. Arranged a time to meet on March 21, 198 3 at 3:30 pm i n the Art room at Cambie Secondary. MARCH 21, 19 8 3 3:30 pm . Held an information meeting at Cambie Second ary School. A l l present suggested they would l i k e d i r e c t i o n as to s p e c i f i c ideas for introducing the material to the i r students MARCH 23, 198 3 Arranged over the telephone the s p e c i f i c times f o r each teacher's v i s i t to the Richmond A r t s Centre. A l s o ensured t h a t the buses had been ordered f o r the f i e l d t r i p . In the week, the r e s e a r c h e r took to each teacher the cardboard f o r making f o l d e r s f o r each student's p r o j e c t m a t e r i a l s and i n d i v i d u a l a r t work. MARCH 27, 198 3 9:30 am V i s i t e d a t Mrs. A d e l i n a West's s t u d i o to see her work and r e c e i v e her s l i d e s f o r the teachers to use i n t h e i r classrooms b e f o r e t h e i r v i s i t to the G a l l e r y . MARCH 28, 1983 9:30 am Took to Mrs. Jane Wheeler, the Richmond A r t s Centre s e c r e t a r y , c o p i e s of b i o g r a p h i e s t h a t I had w r i t t e n about each o f the a r t i s t s i n the forthcoming show IMAGES. MARCH 29, 19 8 3 10:00 am Went to the Richmond Museum to meet with Miss V a r i c k , an employee o f the Duncan F o r e s t r y Museum, to see what methods they used f o r approaching Museum educ a t i o n . MARCH 31, 19 8 3 7:00 pm Talked on the phone wit h Mrs. Nora H a r r i s about her work. She had p r e v i o u s l y sent her s l i d e s . APRIL 2, 19 8 3 10:30 am Met with the a r t i s t , Mr. C a r l Merton, to d i s c u s s h i s views on h i s a r t and r e c e i v e d s l i d e s to a s s i s t the teachers i n t h e i r p r e l i m i n a r y l e s s o n s b e f o r e the v i s i t to the Richmond A r t s Centre. APRIL 2, 1983 11:30 am Met with a r t i s t , Mr. Richard T e t r a u l t , a t h i s walk-up s t u d i o on Powell S t r e e t , r e c e i v e d h i s s l i d e s and ex p l o r e d h i s s t u d i o . 28. APRIL 12, 1983 9:30 am Took s l i d e s of a r t i s t ' s works to Colorfast Labs on No. 3 Road, Richmond, to get two sets made for use by the Secondary Art teachers i n the classroom. APRIL 14, 19 8 3 10:00 am Met with Mrs. Rosemary Currie, the volun- teer docent at the Richmond Art Gallery, to discuss her views on student v i s i t s to the Art Gallery. She explained that gen- e r a l talks with students had not proved too successful except with older students. She expressed her enthusiasm for my project. APRIL 15, 198 3 1:00 pm Met with Ms. K i t Grauer to explain my prog- ress to date. She suggested the researcher do a limited run of twenty-five copies of the teacher's manual. APRIL 25, 1983 9:30 am Took preliminary worksheets to Mrs. Page Hope-Smith and Mr. John Kyte for t h e i r perusal. Picked up the s l i d e s . APRIL 27, 1983 1:00 pm At the Richmond School Board, ran o f f 100 copies of the worksheets and biographies of the a r t i s t s , plus vocabulary l i s t s . APRIL 28, 1983 4:00 pm Met with Ms. K i t Grauer at her home to talk with Richmond Secondary Art teachers about my program and gave out samples of the materials to be used i n the study. It was also an opportunity to give to three of the teachers the mater- i a l s for them to use before they v i s i t the Richmond Arts Centre. MAY 2, 198 3 11:00 am Took Mrs. Dorothy Brogan the teacher's manual and student materials. 29. MAY 9, 19 8 3 Went to v i s i t the teachers to pick up t h e i r student pre-test questionnaires as well as t h e i r own pre-test questionnaires. MAY 13, 1983 9:30 am Mrs. Donna Greiser brought her class to the Richmond Arts Centre for the tour. Mrs. Adelina West came to speak for f i v e minutes. MAY 17, 1983 9:30 am Mrs. Annelies Reeves brought her class to the Richmond Arts Centre for the tour. Nora Harris spoke to the group for f i v e minutes. MAY 18, 1983 10:00 am Mr. Alan Bone brought his class to the Rich- mond Arts Centre for the tour. Mr. Carl Merton spoke to the group for f i v e minutes. MAY 20, 1983 12:00 pm Mrs. Dorothy Brogan brought her class to the Richmond Arts Centre for the tour. Mr. Richard Tetrault spoke to the group for f i v e minutes. JUNE 1-3, 1983 Picked up a l l materials from the teachers i n the f i r s t week of June. JUNE 14, 198 3 3:30 pm Tea at Earl's Place. The researcher i n v i t e d a l l participants to a thank-you tea. I t was an opportunity to meet once again and to show the teachers the photographs taken of t h e i r students while they were at the Richmond Arts Centre. FEBRUARY - JUNE, 19 8 3 Throughout this period there were numerous occasions where the teachers and researcher conversed about the project. This communication was v i t a l to the success of the Model. 30. Chapter 4 SUMMATIVE EVALUATION Results of the Co-ordinator's Evaluation Art Co-ordinator of the Richmond School Board, Ms. K i t Grauer, f e l t the program was worthwhile. Her recommendation suggested that this type of program should be i n s t i t u t e d i n com- bination with sound classroom i n s t r u c t i o n where students under- stand the overlap between school and gallery experience. In par- t i c u l a r , the teacher would need to be aware of the p e c u l i a r i t i e s within each class and adapt the program accordingly. She ex- pressed the appreciation of the Secondary Art teachers at having had the opportunity to be involved i n the program. K i t Grauer suggested that the success of this integration of the Art Founda- tions with the Richmond Arts Centre was due to the researcher's d i r e c t involvement with the teachers. The extensive nature of this involvement i s indicated i n the Diary, Chapter 3. While t h i s was personally a f l a t t e r i n g statement, i t should be borne i n mind that any program would only work to the best of the i n - di v i d u a l teachers and students involved. I t was fortunate that a l l who participated offered t h e i r i n t e r e s t and enthusiasm. As a r e s u l t of the class v i s i t s to the Art Gallery, the act- ing Gallery Co-ordinator would l i k e to see an extension of t h i s program. To that end, the Gallery has advertised for a volunteer to work under the decent. The duties would encompass many of the tasks that the researcher performed. These include contacting the a r t i s t s for upcoming shows, and interviews, preparing a bro- chure and information sheets for the public, as well as invest- igating films and speakers to enhance the exhibitions (Appendix ID . The Gallery views i t s role as being freer and more relaxed than that of the schools. Emphasis should be placed on the need for an open approach to the Gallery. Mrs. Page Hope-Smith was concerned that i t be made clear there are no wrong answers when viewing a r t . To aid i n achieving t h i s goal, the Gallery Co- ordinator would l i k e to see smaller groups come to the Gallery to p a r t i c i p a t e i n experiences organized by the s t a f f i n conjunc- ti o n with the school. I t was concluded that t h i s program had provoked the Gallery personnel to an awareness that this was an area i n which they should be involved. The Museum Co-ordinator would also l i k e to see materials developed for the public. His focus i s more on the preservation and explanation of the function of the works on display, not the i r form, but he did concede that the form did a f f e c t the choices he personally made when selecting works for display. This approach to form and function i s central to the well-devel- oped a r t program which should include opportunities for students to see vi s u a l relationships (Curriculum Guide, 1983, p. 10). The relationships that the researcher and the Museum Co- ordinator developed highlights the notion that personal contact i s of the utmost importance i f a program that makes use of mult- i p l e p e r s o n a l i t i e s i s to succeed. The researcher maintained personal contacts over the two month period while developing the actual Arts Centre program. Effectiveness of the Program The researcher has developed a natural model, for the des- c r i p t i o n of practice i n the implementation of a component of the Secondary Art curriculum. Techniques most suited to this method include open-ended, in-depth interviews, personal observations and questionnaires. The data c o l l e c t e d was i n several forms. It was incorporated into descriptions of the environments, d i r - ect and paraphrased language quotes, and s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. These results have been validated or refuted by the participants. In assessing the o v e r a l l effectiveness of the program, i t was important to ascertain i f the broad and s p e c i f i c objectives (intents, ends) of the program have been s a t i s f i e d (Davis, 1981). This study set out to show that l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres serve as p r a c t i c a l sources for materials i n s a t i s f y i n g the art program goals i n the implementation of the Art Foundations. To thi s end, the researchers, through personal interviews, explored ways that the various s t a f f members of the f a c i l i t i e s , including the Rich- mond Arts Centre and the Richmond School Board and teachers, could communicate and resolve mutual and d i s t i n c t problems. The researcher developed materials for the Secondary Art teachers which introduced the Art Foundations component with a s p e c i f i c application to use on an art gallery and/or history museum v i s i t . These materials gave s p e c i f i c guidance to par- t i c u l a r shows at the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre, yet remained on tar- get towards a basic understanding of the four learning outcomes: developing personal imagery, investigating h i s t o r i c a l and/or contemporary developments i n the arts, learning the elements and pr i n c i p l e s of design, and investigating reasoned c r i t i c i s m . A review of the results of the questionnaires, comment sheets and a r t work generated as a r e s u l t of and during the v i s i t to the Richmond Arts Centre indicates that t h i s program could be considered a success. I t contained the three key elements con- sidered imperative to motivate learning: e f f e c t i v e sequencing of the material, v a l i d a t i o n through r e p e t i t i o n , and self-motiva- tion of the learner through pleasure (Drucker, 1978) . The en- thusiasm generated by the p i l o t project i s evident i n the writ- ten r e s u l t s i n Appendix I. Positive outcomes include the reac- tion and action of the Art Gallery i n th e i r advertising for a volunteer to immediately implement a portion of this program (see Appendix I I ) , i n the acting Museum Curator asking this re- searcher to a s s i s t i n developing museum materials this summer, and i n the l o c a l Secondary Art teachers active planning to repeat the experience next term. The students' responses were also encouraging. There were a few who did not f i n d much merit i n the experience, but they were the minority. A quick perusal through the written student questionnaires indicates a new awareness of what i s available i n the Richmond Arts Centre. Of the sixty-nine completed question- naires, sixty-three f e l t the experience of v i s i t i n g the Arts Centre broadened th e i r knowledge about t h e i r l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre. Over f i f t y percent also found valuable l i s t e n i n g to the i r teacher, watching the s l i d e s of the a r t i s t ' s works, doing the study as a group, l i s t e n i n g to what other students have to say, and expressing th e i r own opinions (see Appendix I, Combined Student Response for more information). The majority f e l t the program was worthwhile and valuable as i t gave them a viewing opportunity at an art show and history museum which they would not normally have undertaken on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e . What was l i k e d best about the program was the expos- ure to art. The least enjoyed was answering the questions. There was a general f e e l i n g expressed that from t h e i r point of view, more time for viewing with less writing and drawing would improve the program. Observations A r i s i n g from the Study 1. There appears to be a need at the university l e v e l for in s t r u c t i o n i n implementation s k i l l s for new programs. Several teachers expressed a lack of confidence i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to imple- ment such a program on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e . 2. The guide for the Art Foundations component of the Secondary A r t c u r r i c u l u m needs t o g i v e s p e c i f i c guidance on whic h t h e t e a c h e r may b u i l d a t o t a l program. I d e a l l y , t h i s f o r - mat would i n c l u d e a foc u s on the l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e as a v e h i c l e f o r a c h i e v i n g the l e a r n i n g outcomes o f the A r t Founda- t i o n s component o f the Secondary A r t c u r r i c u l u m . 3. A l l t e a c h e r s e x p r e s s e d a c o n c e r n t h a t t h e r e i s no e f - f e c t i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o the a r t t e a c h e r s i n the R i c h - mond S c h o o l D i s t r i c t i n d i c a t i n g t h e s e r v i c e s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e a t t h e Richmond A r t s C e n t r e . 4. The s c h o o l s have n o t re a c h e d o ut t o the community, s p e c i f i c a l l y t he Richmond A r t s C e n t r e , t o make them aware o f the s c h o o l s ' needs and how t h e l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e might b e s t s e r v e t h e s e needs. T h i s was i m p l i e d by the t e a c h e r s ' i n t e r e s t i n hav- i n g a chance t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a program such as "More Than Meets the Eye." 5. The c h o i c e w hich was made by the p l a n n e r s i n l o c a t i n g the Richmond A r t s Centre i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t was i n t e n d e d t o be a f o c a l p o i n t i n t h e community. W i t h i t s i d e a l l o c a t i o n between the l i b r a r y and i c e r i n k i t i s e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e t o r e a c h beyond i m p l e m e n t i n g s t u d e n t programs t o i n c l u d e a c t i v i t i e s and mater- i a l s t o a t t r a c t t h e community a t l a r g e . 6. The A c t i n g H i s t o r y Museum C o - o r d i n a t o r had an i n i t i a l i n t e r e s t i n the r e s e a r c h e r ' s approach t o t h e Museum. The a c t u a l 36. implementation of the tours, due to lack of time, were not as successful as he had hoped. He expressed concern that the act- ual v i s i t , other than f u l f i l l i n g the mandate that any v i s i t was better than no v i s i t , did not serve any e f f e c t i v e purpose from the History Museum's point of view i n furthering the aims and objectives of the Museum. The data implies that students were intrigued at t h e i r glimpse of the history of t h e i r community. Several made the comment that i f i t was history "forget i t , " but this " s t u f f " was d i f f e r e n t . This was i n reference to the Mus- eum's display of materials related to the development of the Richmond community. 7. The o v e r a l l poor quality of written responses and the comments on the questionnaires indicated that the students were not comfortable with a written format. This suggests that fut- ure worksheets should explore alternatives to expression. Per- haps have the groups use a tape recorder to record t h e i r respon- ses, or possibly have a general discussion at the v i s i t . The d i f f i c u l t y with the l a s t suggestion i s that i t i s a public f a c i l - i t y and as such has other patrons viewing at the same time. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , have each member of a group take a small segment of the worksheets. This was suggested by the researcher but the students seemed reluctant to attempt this approach. 8. This project was a success as implied by the general en- thusiasm and support given the project by students, p a r t i c i p a t i n g a r t i s t s , acting Gallery Co-ordinator, acting Museum Co-ordinator, and School Board s t a f f and A r t C o - o r d i n a t o r . This statement i s v a l i d a t e d by the w r i t t e n responses by the v a r i o u s Co-ordinators and students as w e l l as d i r e c t i n t e r v i e w s with the v a r i o u s par- t i c i p a n t s . 9. There i s a need f o r c l o s e r l i a i s o n between the A r t Co- o r d i n a t o r s o f the Richmond School Board and the Richmond A r t s Centre. T h i s c o u l d be accomplished by r e g u l a r telephone c o n t a c t , f o l l o w e d up by exchanging w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l on needs and program o p p o r t u n i t i e s each would l i k e the o t h e r . t o know. This l i a i s o n c o u l d a l s o be implemented by i n d i v i d u a l teachers t a k i n g the time to meet the C o - o r d i n a t o r s and e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r needs. Recommendations 1. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia should ensure t h a t there i s a component i n the degree program which deals with the importance of and p r e p a r a t i o n f o r f i e l d t r i p s to l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s i n a r t t e a c h e r s ' communities. This would serve the pur- pose of p r e p a r i n g teachers to e x p l o r e a l t e r n a t i v e avenues i n t h e i r implementation o f the A r t Foundations component of the Secondary c u r r i c u l u m . 2 . The Richmond School Board should c o n s i d e r p r e p a r i n g a b a s i c program which c o u l d be adapted by the i n d i v i d u a l Secondary A r t teachers f o r the implementation of the A r t Foundations 38. component of the Secondary Art curriculum. It would o f f e r guid- ance as to the desired learning outcomes required of the stud- ents . 3. The Richmond Arts Centre should place a larger b i l l - board, i n the concourse between the l i b r a r y and i t s building, to draw to the public's attention the unique features that they have to o f f e r . Considering the location of the Richmond Arts Centre within the municipality, i t i s evident that the Richmond munic- i p a l planners intended i t to be one of the f o c i i for the commun- i t y . 4. And, f i n a l l y , the students themselves had a number of recommendations from which the researcher has selected the f o l - lowing. It i s recommended that the gallery personnel should not smoke i n the gallery, that the actual t r i p to the c u l t u r a l centre should be by car or public bus, not a school bus, and that the labels put up for the show should be larger, darker, and written with more information about the piece named. Their strongest recommendation came from a f e e l i n g of f r u s t r a t i o n that the time a l l o t t e d for the program did not allow them to complete the work- sheets , and to that end they recommended that more time be given or less material be covered. Conclusion This case' study, undertaken for a period of f i v e months, described and explained an approach to the implementation of the Arts Foundations component of the Secondary Art curriculum. P a r t i c u l a r emphasis has been placed on the use of l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres as p r a c t i c a l sources for materials i n s a t i s f y i n g the Art program goals. The structured setting of the program as implemented may not allow enough space for the individual's personal enjoyment but unless art educators arrange experiences that focus on the desired learning outcomes there can be l i t t l e common ground on which to b u i l d an understanding of art. This understanding i s the focus of the Art Foundations component of the Secondary Art guide. A l l the learning outcomes could be taught i n the classroom by the teacher but the learning experience of viewing and examin- ing art i n a gallery or museum setting cannot. To educate the eye to see subtle differences i n function and form i s best ac- complished i n the l o c a l Arts Centre. Ultimately i t would be desirable to have a population which v i s i t e d t h e i r l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre as a matter of course and derived personal s a t i s f a c t i o n and pleasure from experiencing the arts . Towards that end, art educators must make every e f f o r t to ensure that students achieve a working knowledge of the learning outcomes—a knowledge based on the arts as vibrant, v i t a l elements i n t h e i r l i v e s . One p r a c t i c a l approach to f u l f i l l i n g t h i s aim for art educa- ti o n i s the exposure to a variety of experiences. V i s i t s to a l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre would provide an enormous scope for exploring the process of educational practice. It offers a unique laboratory for students to test t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l preferences 40. i n the development o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l imagery. The atmosphere i n the l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e i s one t h a t would be extremely d i f f i c u l t t o d u p l i c a t e i n the classroom. F o r t u n a t e l y , i t i s not necessary to attempt t h i s d u p l i c a t i o n with the f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l - a ble i n the Richmond A r t s Centre. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barkan, M. , Chapman, L.H., & Kern, E.J. Guidelines: curriculum development for aesthetic education. St. Louis: Central Midwestern Regional Laboratory, Inc. (CEMREL), 1970. Broudy, H.S. The arts as basic education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, October, 1978, 12(4), 21-24. Broudy, H.S. Enlightened cherishing: An essay on aesthetic education" Urbana, I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press, March, 1972. Broudy, H.S. How basic i s aesthetic education? or Is 'RT the fourth R? Paper presented at the annual meeting, Associa- tio n ' f o r Supervision and Curriculum Development, Houston, Texas, March 19-23, 1977. Broudy, H.S. The whys and hows of aesthetic education. St. Louis, Missouri: CEMREL, Inc., July 1977. Chapman, L.H. Approaches to art i n education. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978. Clark, G.A., & Zimmerman, E. A walk i n the ri g h t d i r e c t i o n : A model for v i s u a l arts education. Studies i n A r t Education', 1978, 19(2), 34-49. Connelly, F.M., Dukaca, A.S., & Quinlan, F. • Curriculum planning for the classroom. Ontario Teachers Federation & O.I.S.E., 1980. Davis, S. Development of a b u i l t environment program for application and use i n the B.C. secondary curriculum. Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1981. Drucker, P. The age of discontinuity. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 19 78. Eisner, E. Educating a r t i s t i c v i s i o n . New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 19 72. Eisner, E. The educational imagination: on the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan, 19 79. Ferguson, M. The aquarian conspiracy. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1980. Feldman, E.B. Varieties of v i s u a l experience. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1972. Hurwitz, A., & Madeja, S. The joyous v i s i o n . Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977. MacDonnell, Carol. From the gap: the view from the art museum. C.S.E.A., The Annual Journal, 1980. McFee, J., & Degge, R. Art, culture and environment. C a l i f o r n i a Wadsworth, 1977. McKim, R.H. Experiences i n v i s u a l thinking. Monterey, C a l i f o r - n i a : Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1980. Newsom, B., & S i l v e r , Adele. The art museum as educator. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1978. Ott, R.W. Museums and schools as universal partners i n art education. Art Education, January 1980, 3_3(1), 7-9. Secondary Art Guide 8-12. Curriculum Guide and Content Resources V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia: Curriculum Development Branch, 1983. Silverman, R. Career education i n ar t . Unpublished manuscript, 1983. Smith, R. The "deschooling" of art education: how i t ' s happen- ing and what to do about i t . Art Education, March 19 80, 33(3), 8-10. Smoke, J.G. Expressionism and phenomenology i n aesthetic educa- ti o n . Journal of Aesthetic Education, 1974, 8_(4), 91-103. Smoke, J.G. Metaphor i n art education: some Heideggerian o r i g i n s . Visual Arts Research, F a l l , 1982, 16, 68-74. Stake, R. Evaluating the arts i n education: a responsive approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l , 1975. T o f f l e r , A. Future shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Ze l l e r , T. Let's teach art with o r i g i n a l s . Art Education, January, 1983, 36_(1), 43-46. Zimmerman, E. Digraph analysis and reconstruction of Broudy's aesthetic education theory: An exemplar for aesthetic education theory analysis and construction. Studies i n Art Education, 1982, 23(3), 39-47. APPENDIX I R e s u l t s o f t e a c h e r , a r t c o - o r d i n a t o r , g a l l e r y c o - o r d i n a t o r , museum c o - o r d i n a t o r and s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a d m i n i s t e r e d a t c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e f i v e week p i l o t program p e r i o d . Teacher, a r t c o - o r d i n a t o r , g a l l e r y c o - o r d i n a t o r and museum c o - o r d i n a t o r responses a r e reproduced verbatum as hand w r i t t e n on e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Student responses r e p r e s e n t a c o m p i l a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l responses on a s i n g l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e form f o r each group w i t h number o f s t u d e n t s r e s p o n d i n g i n each c a t e g o r y shown n u m e r i c a l l y on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e form. Responses o f a w r i t t e n n a t u r e from the s t u d e n t s a r e summarized by l i s t i n g a l l i n d i v i d u a l responses t o a g i v e n q u e s t i o n by a t e s t group. The o v e r a l l r e s u l t s o f the s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e have been c o m p l i e d i n t o one q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Questionnaires modelled and adapted from Davis, S. Development of a b u i l t environment program for application and use in the B.C. secondary curriculum. Vancouver, British Columbias University of British Columbia, 1981. 44. RICHMOND SCHOOL BOARD ART CO-ORDINATOR TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE This survey i s to obtain your view of the materials prepared for the v i s i t to the Richmond Arts Centre as well as your response to the effectiveness of the actual program. As you are p i l o t i n g t h i s program, please make notations on the following questions as they apply to the objectives, content and teaching-learning strategies. Your comments w i l l be treated c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . Program T i t l e : Richmond Arts Centre Program Grade l e v e l 8-12 Characteristics of the classes (eg. - English as a second language, interest l e v e l in art and the arts, etc.) N.A. 1) Comment on the significance of the program. Can time a l l o t t e d to the program be j u s t i f i e d ? Is the content worthwhile for the students to pursue? In combination with sound classroom in s t r u c t i o n where students understand the overlap between school and g a l l e r y experience, the program i s c l e a r l y worthwhile. 2) Comment on the appropriateness of the program. Is i t appropriate to the grade levels? Does i t accomodate students of varying a b i l i t i e s and interests? Again, the program i s appropriate for secondary students when the teacher i s aware of the p e r c u l i a r i t i e s within each class and adapts to them. 3) What i s your o v e r a l l assessment of the unit? From the remarks of teachers involved, they were pleased with the experience. 4) Please complete the following questions by placing an "X" on the response that best f i t s your assessment: The program i s : satisfactory/unsatisfactory Objectives Are they e x p l i c i t and complete? Are they c l e a r l y stated and easy to follow? Are they suited to your time and resource restraints? Are t h e y d e v e l o p e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y thoughout the program? Content I s t h e r e e v i d e n c e o f b i a s ( e t h n i c , sex r o l e s , s t e r e o - t y p e s ) ? Are t h e r e m i s t a t e m e n t s or o m i s s i o n s o f f a c t ? - s o u r c e s s h o u l d have been acknowledged on t h e same page. Does i t match s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s ? I s t h e r e a d i b i l i t y a p p r o p r i a t e ( v o c a b u l a r y , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e ) ? I s i t w e l l o r g a n i z e d and easy t o f o l l o w ? Are a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d or suggested? I s t h e s u b j e c t t r e a t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t depth? Is t h e c o n t e n t new r a t h e r than redundant t o s t u d e n t s ? T e a c h e r - l e a r n i n g S t r a t e g i e s i n Handbook I s v a r i e t y p r o v i d e d f o r approaches t o the program (opener, d e v e l o p m e n t a l , c l o s u r e ) ? Are t h e y s u i t e d t o the o b j e c t i v e s ? Are t h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s t y l e s ? Do t h e y encourage c r e a t i v i t y : Do t h e y encourage a v a r i e t y o f s t u d e n t responses? Do t h e y f a c i l i t a t e e n q u i r y r a t h e r than r o t e l e a r n i n g ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s u i t t h e o b j e c t i v e s ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s accommodate s t u d e n t d i f f e r e n c e s ? Do s t u d e n t s have o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s e l f and group e v a l u a t i o n ? 6) D i d you r e q u i r e h e l p from someone (eg. c o n s u l t a n t , development team member, t e a c h e r ) t o c l a r i f y some a s p e c t o f 46. t h e p r o g r a m ? Y e s , h e l p was r e q u i r e d X No 7) Comment on t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t i n t h e u n i t . Do s t u d e n t s become a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d and i n t e r e s t e d ? Do t h e y p e r c e i v e i t a s r e l e v a n t , a t t r a c t i v e and m e a n i n g f u l ? Does t h e p r o g r a m b u i l d on t h e s t u d e n t ' s own e x p e r i e n c e s ? I s i t s t u d e n t o r c o n t e n t o r i e n t e d ? I s t h e r e enough v a r i e t y ? I s s t u d e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g e n c o u r a g e d and c h o i c e accommodated? Does i t a l l o w f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d p a c i n g , o r must a l l s t u d e n t s do t h e same t h i n g a t t h e same t i m e and i n t h e same way? A n s w e r e d i n i n t e r v i e w . 8) Comment on any a d d i t i o n a l a s p e c t s w h i c h y o u f e e l w o u l d be h e l p f u l t o t h e p e r s o n r e v i s i n g t h i s p r o g r a m . S u g g e s t e d a r e a s f o r comment c o u l d i n c l u d e s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s f r o m t h e f o l l o w i n g : c o m p l e t e n e s s , c l a r i t y , s c o p e , r e a l i s m , i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , b i a s , a c c u r a c y , c u r r e n c y , r e a d a b i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , v a r i e t y , d e p t h , r e d u n d a n c y , f l e x i b i l i t y , c r e a t i v i t y , s e q u e n c e , i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , o p e n - e n d e d n e s s . What w o u l d t h e d i r e c t i o n be i n i m p l e m e n t i n g t h i s p r o g r a m ? Much o f t h e s u c c e s s i n R i chmond was due t o y o u r i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h t e a c h e r s and f a c i l i c a t i n g r o l e . How c o u l d t h e s e f e a t u r e s be e n s u r e d i n a r e v i s e d p r o g r a m t h a t was c o m p l e t e i n i t s e l f ? 9) What i n y o u r o p i n i o n , i s t h e o v e r a l l s t r e n g t h o f t h i s p r o g r a m ? The s t r e n g t h o f t h e p r o g r a m was i n d e v e l o p i n g a w o r k a b l e f o r m a t and m a t e r i a l s t o u s e t o meet t h e c r i t e r i a o f t h e s e c o n d a r y a r t g u i d e and by i n v o l v i n g t e a c h e r s d i r e c t l y i n a p p l y i n g t h o s e c r i t e r i a . 10) What i n y o u r o p i n i o n , i s t h e o v e r a l l weaknes s o f t h i s p r o g r a m ? A n s w e r e d a b o v e . 11) Do y o u recommend t h a t t h i s u n i t be p r o d u c e d f o r c l a s s r o o m u s e and d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e p r o v i n c e ? ( c h e c k one) (a) w i t h o u t r e v i s i o n s (c) w i t h m a j o r r e v i s i o n s (b) X w i t h m i n o r r e v i s i o n s (d) n o t recommended I f y o u c h e c k e d (b) o r ( c ) , what s p e c i f i c s u g g e s t i o n s f o r i m p r o v e m e n t do y o u recommend? 47. See q u e s t i o n 8 ( r e s p o n s e ) . A few b r i e f comments on how t o r e l a t e the s e c t i o n s on Imagery, D e s i g n , e t c . t o t h e G a l l e r y e x p e r i e n c e might be h e l p f u l . 48. MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE by L.A. Carmichael SCHOOL A GRADE 8 PRE-TEST TEACHER 1. Why did you agree to par t i c i p a t e i n this project? Because I wanted to experience a p r a c t i c a l application of c r i t i c a l theory i n r e l a t i o n to the new curriculum guide and because I believed the students would benefit from the ex- perience . 2. Do you agree with the statement below? Yes If so please t e l l what you as a teacher have implemented i n the past to achieve t h i s aim. Nothing - i t has always bothered me that I have not offered more f i e l d t r i p s but the procedure of arranging them i s d i f f i c u l t , c o s t ly and time-consuming - can't find people to cover your classes while gone. I I early and regular use of art museum f a c i l i t i e s based on aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s i s i n a very r e a l sense prepara- tion for l i f e - l o n g learning and enjoyment of the vi s u a l art s" (Art Education, January, 1983, 36(1)). 3. Do you take your classes to l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres through- out the school year? No If so, where have you taken them i n the past school year? PRE-TEST TEACHER 4. G i v e n t h e c h o i c e w h i c h w o u l d y o u p r e f e r , t o v i s i t a l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e u s i n g m a t e r i a l s t o g u i d e t h e s t u d e n t ' s v i e w i n g o r h a v i n g a q u a l i f i e d d o c e n t v i s i t y o u r s c h o o l w i t h s e l e c t e d m a t e r i a l s ? We had t h e V.A.G. v i s i t o u r s c h o o l and I was v e r y p l e a s e d w i t h t h e r e s u l t s . T h i s s e c o n d o p t i o n s o l v e s a l l o f t h e p r o b l e m s n o t e d i n #2. 5. Do t h e l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s i n t h e Richmond a r e a keep y o u w e l l i n f o r m e d o f t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s ? No I f n o t , what w o u l d y o u s u g g e s t t h e y do t o c o r r e c t t h i s ? M o n t h l y b u l l e t i n s t o t h e s c h o o l s t h a t a r e more h i g h l y d e s c r i p t i v e t h a n s i m p l y naming a r t i s t s and t i t l e s , i . e . , more v i s u a l s . 6. S l i d e s have been made a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e t e a c h e r t o show t o t h e s t u d e n t s b e f o r e t h e v i s i t . They a r e examples o f t h e a r t i s t ' work. Do y o u f e e l i t i s an a d v a n t a g e t o have t h i s p r e v i e w o f t h works t o be s e e n a t t h e A r t s C e n t r e ? Y e s . What a r e t h e s p e c i f i c m e r i t s f o r y o u r c l a s s ? G i v e s them b a c k g r o u n d e x p e r i e n c e i n p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e s o r themes, e t c . , so v i e w i n g i n t h e g a l l e r y t a k e s on a s l i g h t l y more s o p h i s t i c a t e d n a t u r e ( r e v i e w i n g ) . 7. What do y o u a n t i c i p a t e w i l l be t h e o v e r a l l s t r e n g t h o f t h i s p r ogram? T e a c h i n g t h e t e a c h e r s . 50. PRE-TEST TEACHER 8. What do you a n t i c i p a t e w i l l be the o v e r a l l weakness o f t h i s program? Students o f t e n seem u n w i l l i n g to put f o r t h e x t r a e f f o r t to gai n c l o s u r e i n a s h o r t p e r i o d o f time. I suspect t h a t t h i s program w i l l be a begi n n i n g r a t h e r than an end i n i t s e l f . MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE by L.A. Carmichael SCHOOL B GRADE 9 PRE-TEST TEACHER 1. Why did you agree to pa r t i c i p a t e i n this project? It sounded very worthwhile for both myself and my students. 2. Do you agree with the statement below? Yes If so please t e l l what you as a teacher have implemented i n the past to achieve this aim. Grade 9 and 10 go to Granville Island to the Emily Carr College of Art and also v i s i t the l o c a l g a l l e r i e s i n that area. Grade 8 v i s i t s the Minoru Gallery. "early and regular use of art museum f a c i l i t i e s based on aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s i s i n a very re a l sense prepara- tion for l i f e - l o n g learning and enjoyment of the v i s u a l arts" (Art Education, January, 1983, 35(1)). 3. Do you take your classes to l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres through- out the school year? Yes If so, where have you taken them i n the past school year? Minoru Art Gallery Student Show Granville Island Tour 4. Given the choice which would you prefer, to v i s i t a l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre using materials to guide the student's viewing 52. or having a q u a l i f i e d docent v i s i t your school with selected materials? The actual v i s i t . 5. Do the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres i n the Richmond area keep you well informed of the i r a c t i v i t i e s ? Yes If not, what would you suggest they do to correct this? N.A. 6. Slides have been made available for the teacher to show to the students before the v i s i t . They are examples of the a r t i s t ' s work. Do you f e e l i t i s an advantage to have this preview of the works to be seen at the Arts Centre? Yes What are the s p e c i f i c merits for your class? Answers a l o t of t h e i r questions about the v i s i t . They f i n a l l y have a chance to see how the o r i g i n a l compares to a copy ( s l i d e ) . 7. What do you anticipate w i l l be the o v e r a l l strength of t h i s program? Improve t h e i r a b i l i t y to understand and therefore better able to appreciate and c r i t i c i z e others and t h e i r own works of a rt. 8. What do you anticipate w i l l be the o v e r a l l weakness of this program? None MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE by L.A. Carmichael SCHOOL C GRADE 10 PRE-TEST TEACHER 1. Why did you agree to par t i c i p a t e i n this project? I agreed to parti c i p a t e p a r t i a l l y because I was asked to by K i t Grauer, but mainly because I thought i t would benefit myself and my students i n using the new curriculum. 2. Do you agree with the statement below? Yes If so, please t e l l what you as a teacher have implemented i n the past to achieve this aim. We have v i s i t e d the Richmond Arts Centre, and the Vancouver Art Gallery i n the past. "early and regular use of art museum f a c i l i t i e s based on aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s i s i n a very r e a l sense prepara- ti o n for l i f e - l o n g learning and enjoyment of the vi s u a l a r t s " (Art, Education, January, 1983, 35(1)). 3. Do you take your classes to l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres through- out the school year? I try to. If so, where have you taken them i n the past school year? Well, not too many places, as f i e l d t r i p s have been severely l i m i t e d t h i s year because of r e s t r a i n t . (No bus funds! and no substitutes!) PRE-TEST TEACHER 4. Given the choice which would you p r e f e r , to v i s i t a l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e u s i n g m a t e r i a l s to guide the student's viewing or having a q u a l i f i e d docent v i s i t your s c h o o l with s e l e c t e d m a t e r i a l s ? Both are good i d e a s . I've never a c t u a l l y had a v i s i t i n g guide to the museums, but I've had the V.A.G. come i n w i t h m a t e r i a l s . I can't r e a l l y choose y e t . 5. Do the l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s i n the Richmond area keep you w e l l informed of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s ? Yes I f not, what would you suggest they do to c o r r e c t t h i s ? N.A. 6. S l i d e s have been made a v a i l a b l e f o r the teacher to show to the students b e f o r e the v i s i t . They are examples of the a r t i s t ' work. Do you f e e l i t i s an advantage to have t h i s preview o f th works to be seen a t the A r t s Centre? Yes What are the s p e c i f i c m e r i t s f o r your c l a s s ? I t h i n k i t i s a good i d e a to prepare students by previewing the a r t i f a c t s . Some students do not l i k e s l i d e s t h a t much. But I f e e l t h a t i t prepares them by a l l o w i n g them to be more f a m i l i a r with an a r t i s t ' s s t y l e . 7. What do you a n t i c i p a t e w i l l be the o v e r a l l s t r e n g t h o f t h i s program? I t h i n k t h a t r e a l l y l o o k i n g a t the works and being a b l e to d i s c u s s the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s i s important f o r s t u d e n t s . They r e a l l y seem to want to know more about why something i s good art (or bad). I think that a l o t of them are look ing forward to meeting the a r t i s t . 8. What do you anticipate w i l l be the o v e r a l l weakness of t h i program? It's d i f f i c u l t to say at this point. The materials have been well prepared. I think my students w i l l enjoy i t . MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE by L.A. Carmichael SCHOOL D GRADE 11/12 PRE-TEST TEACHER 1. Why did you agree to par t i c i p a t e i n thi s project? To see how someone else approached gallery v i s i t s and connected them to the new curriculum. 2. Do you agree with the statement below? Yes If so please t e l l what you as a teacher have implemented i n the past to achieve t h i s aim. Gallery v i s i t s have been primarily an adjunct to classroom work, but also to explore aesthetic discovery. "early and regular use of art museum f a c i l i t i e s based on aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s i s i n a very r e a l sense prepara- tion for l i f e - l o n g learning and enjoyment of the v i s u a l a r t s " (Art Education, January, 1983, 35(1)). 3. Do you take your classes to l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres through- out the school year? Yes If so, where have you taken them i n the past school year? Vancouver Art Gallery 4. Given the choice which would you prefer, to v i s i t a l o c a l c u l t u r a l centre using materials to guide the sgudent's viewing or having a q u a l i f i e d docent v i s i t your school with selected materials? Go to a c u l t u r a l centre. 5 . Do the l o c a l c u l t u r a l centres i n the Richmond area keep you well informed of the i r a c t i v i t i e s ? No If not, what would you suggest they do to correct this? By mail/phone, Richmond Review, and other papers. 6 . Slides have been made available for the teacher to show to the students before the v i s i t . They are examples of the a r t i s t ' s work. Do you f e e l i t i s an advantage to have th i s preview of the works to be seen at the Arts Centre? Yes What are the s p e c i f i c merits for your class? For discussion. 7. What do you anticipate w i l l be the o v e r a l l strength of t h i s program? Giving students a focus for a gallery v i s i t . 8. What do you anticipate w i l l be the o v e r a l l weakness of this program? Variation i n student a b i l i t y to express themselves i n c r i t i c a l terms. 58. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR GRADES 8, 9, 10, 11/12. PRE-TEST STUDENT 1. Have you been to an Art Gallery or History Museum? Yes: 6 8 No: 14 If so, where? 2. Have you ever f e l t you would l i k e to know more about how a c r i t i c a l decision about a rt or a r t i f a c t s i s reached? Yes: 48 No: 31 3. Do you f e e l the statement "I l i k e i t , " or "I don't l i k e i t , " i s adequate when t e l l i n g what you know about a work of art? Yes: 15 No: 66 4. Do you know what a c t i v i t i e s are taking place i n the loc a l - c u l t u r a l centres i n Richmond? (Art Gallery, History Museum, Library, Community Centre, Movie Theatres, etc.) Yes: 4 4 No: 35 If so, how? Community Centre: 8 Movie Theatre: 19 Papers: 19 TV/Radio: 9 Fly e r s : 7 Posters: 4 Library: 3 5. You w i l l be seeing s l i d e s of the a r t i s t ' s works before going to v i s i t the Arts Centre. Do you l i k e seeing slides? Yes: 51 No: 2 7 59, 6. Which do you prefer, to work i n small groups - 34; pairs - 25; or alone - 24? 7. What do you think w i l l be the best part of this v i s i t ? Seeing Art - 48; Missing School - 10; Learning about Art - 9; New Experience - 7; History Museum - 6. 8. What do you think w i l l be the least enjoyable part of thi s v i s i t ? Talks/Lectures - 14; Answering Questions - 9; Taking Notes - 8; Bus - 8; None - 6; Slides - 5; Some kinds of art - 6. 60. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE This survey i s to o b t a i n your view of the m a t e r i a l s prepared f o r the v i s i t to the Richmond A r t s Centre as w e l l as your response to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the a c t u a l program. As you are p i l o t - i n g t h i s program, please make notations on the f o l l o w i n g ques- t i o n s as they apply to the o b j e c t i v e s , content and teaching- l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Your comments w i l l be t r e a t e d confiden- t i a l l y . Program T i t l e : Richmond A r t s Centre Program Grade l e v e l 8 School :• A C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c l a s s e s (e.g., E n g l i s h as a second language, i n t e r e s t l e v e l i n a r t and the a r t s , e t c . ) . Normal grade 8 c l a s s who chose a r t as e l e c t i v e s u bject. 1) Comment on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the program. Can time a l l o t t e d to the program be j u s t i f i e d ? Is the content worthwhile f o r the students to pursue? Content i s q u i t e worthwhile. However the four classroom hours I used to prepare f o r the v i s i t were not q u i t e s u f f i c i e n t . 2) Comment on the appropriateness of the program. Is i t appropriate to the grade l e v e l s ? Does i t accommodate students of v a r y i n g a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s ? Both appropriate and accommodating to grade l e v e l and students' i n t e r e s t s . 3) What i s your o v e r a l l assessment of the u n i t ? Good i n conjunction w i t h new c u r r i c u l u m guide. Students must be w e l l prepared to handle the volume of content m a t e r i a l i n a short time frame. 4) Please complete the f o l l o w i n g questions by p l a c i n g an "X" on the response that best f i t s your assessment: The program i s : Objectives s a t i s f a c t o r y / u n s a t i s f a c t o r y Are they e x p l i c i t and complete? Are they c l e a r l y s t a t e d and easy to follow? 6 1 . Are they suited to your time and resource r e s t r a i n t ? Are they developed s a t i s f a c t o r i l y throughout the program? Content Is there evidence of bias (ethnic, sex r o l e s , stereotypes)? Are there misstatements or omissions of fact? -sources should have been acknowledged on the same page. Does i t match stated objectives? Is the r e a d a b i l i t y appropriate (vocabulary, sentence structure)? Is i t well organized and easy to follow? Are a variety of resource materials provided or suggested? Is the subject treated i n s u f f i c i e n t depth? Is the content new rather than redundant to students? Teacher-learning Strategies i n Handbook Is variety provided for approaches to the program (opener, developmental, closure)? Are they suited to the objectives? Are there alternatives for d i f f e r e n t teaching- learning styles? Do they encourage c r e a t i v i t y ? Do they encourage a variety of student responses? Do they f a c i l i t a t e enquiry rather than rote learning? Do evaluation a c t i v i t i e s s u i t the objectives? Do evaluation a c t i v i t i e s accommodate student differences? Do students have opportunity for s e l f and group evaluation? 5) Comment on how l o n g i t took you t o c o v e r the program i n c l a s s t i m e . 7 hours was not q u i t e l o n g enough. 6) D i d you r e q u i r e h e l p from someone (e.g., c o n s u l t a n t , d e v e l o p - ment team member, t e a c h e r ) t o c l a r i f y some a s p e c t o f the program? X Yes, h e l p was r e q u i r e d . No 7) Comment on t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f the s t u d e n t i n the u n i t . Do s t u d e n t s become a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d and i n t e r e s t e d ? Do they p e r - c e i v e i t as r e l e v a n t , a t t r a c t i v e and m e a n i n g f u l ? Does t h e program b u i l d on t h e s t u d e n t ' s own e x p e r i e n c e s ? I s i t s t u d e n t o r c o n t e n t o r i e n t e d ? I s t h e r e enough v a r i e t y ? I s s t u d e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g encouraged and c h o i c e accommodated? Does i t a l l o w f o r i n d i v i d u a l - i z e d p a c i n g , o r must a l l s t u d e n t s do the same t h i n g a t t h e same time and i n the same way? 8) Comment on any a d d i t i o n a l a s p e c t s which you f e e l would be h e l p f u l t o t h e pe r s o n r e v i s i n g t h i s program. Suggested a r e a s f o r comment c o u l d i n c l u d e s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s from the f o l l o w i n g : c o m p l e t e n e s s , c l a r i t y , scope, r e a l i s m , i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , b i a s , a c c u r a c y , c u r r e n c y , r e a d a b i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , v a r i e t y , i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , open-endedness. 9) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s t h e o v e r a l l s t r e n g t h o f t h i s program? - i n v o l v i n g s t u d e n t s i n a r t c r i t i c i s m - g e t t i n g s t u d e n t s t o l o o k a t a r t i n t h e i r communities 10) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s t h e o v e r a l l weakness o f t h i s program? Lack o f s t u d e n t and/or t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n . 11) Do you recommend t h a t t h i s u n i t be produced f o r c l a s s r o o m use and d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t the e n t i r e p r o v i n c e ? (check one) (a) w i t h o u t r e v i s i o n s (c) w i t h major r e v i s i o n s (b) w i t h minor r e v i s i o n s (d) n o t recommended X I f you checked (b) o r ( c ) , what s p e c i f i c s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improvement do you recommend? There a r e f a r t o o many communities i n t h i s p r o v i n c e w i t h l i t t l e o r no a c c e s s t o p r o p e r g a l l e r i e s o r museums. 63. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE This survey i s to obtain your view of the materials prepared for the v i s i t to the Richmond Arts Centre as well as your response to the effectiveness of the actual program. As you are p i l o t - ing t h i s program, please make notations on the following ques- tions as they apply to the objectives, content and teaching- learning strategies. Your comments w i l l be treated confiden- t i a l l y . Program T i t l e : Richmond Arts Centre Program Grade l e v e l 9 School B Characteristics of the classes (e.g., English as a second language, i n t e r e s t l e v e l i n art and the a r t s , e t c . ) . Drawing and painting 8. 2nd year art students. The majority of students are highly s k i l l e d t e c h n i c a l l y and very keen. 1) Comment on the significance of the program. Can time a l l o t t e d to the program be j u s t i f i e d ? Is the content worthwhile for the students to pursue? This program, can be an important part of art education. Image development i s an important part of the curriculum; must be taught—the questions i n t h i s unit focus the stud- ents' attention to t h i s area. J u s t i f i a b l e c r i t i c i s m i s necessary to consumers and producers of Art. 2) Comment on the appropriateness of the program. Is i t ap- propriate to the grade levels? Does i t accommodate students of varying a b i l i t i e s and interests? A l l the students got something worthwhile out of the program. A few out of the group are below average i n a b i l i t y . These students had trouble understanding and answering questions from "More Than Meets the Eye." Non-verbal answers were good for varying a b i l i t i e s . 3) What i s your o v e r a l l assessment of the unit? Excellent. The guide i s well planned and could be adapted into a l o t of subject areas to ensure that the students get the most out of the c u l t u r a l centre v i s i t s . As an Art teacher, I found the guide contained a l o t of necessary and pertinent informa- ti o n needed to d i r e c t the learning s i t u a t i o n towards meeting the objectives of image development and j u s t i f i a b l e c r i t i c - ism. C r i t i q u i n g w i l l inevitably lead to s i g n i f i c a n t improve- ment i n the students' technical s k i l l s . 4) P l e a s e complete the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s by p l a c i n g an "X" on t h e response t h a t b e s t f i t s your assessment: The program i s : s a t i s f a c t o r y / u n s a t i s f a c t o r y O b j e c t i v e s Are t h e y e x p l i c i t and complete? Are t h e y c l e a r l y s t a t e d and easy t o f o l l o w ? Are t h e y s u i t e d t o your time and r e s o u r c e r e s t r a i n t s ? Are t h e y d e v e l o p e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y thoughout the program? Content I s t h e r e e v i d e n c e o f b i a s ( e t h n i c , sex r o l e s , s t e r e o - t y p e s ) ? Are t h e r e m i s t a t e m e n t s or o m i s s i o n s o f f a c t ? - s o u r c e s s h o u l d have been acknowledged on the same page. Does i t match s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s ? I s the r e a d i b i l i t y a p p r o p r i a t e ( v o c a b u l a r y , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e ) ? I s i t w e l l o r g a n i z e d and easy t o f o l l o w ? Are a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d or suggested? I s t h e s u b j e c t t r e a t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t depth? Is t h e c o n t e n t new r a t h e r than redundant t o s t u d e n t s ? T e a c h e r - l e a r n i n g S t r a t e g i e s i n Handbook I s v a r i e t y p r o v i d e d f o r approaches t o the program (opener, d e v e l o p m e n t a l , c l o s u r e ) ? Are t h e y s u i t e d t o the o b j e c t i v e s ? Are t h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s t y l e s ? Do t h e y encourage c r e a t i v i t y : 65. Do they encourage a variety of student responses? Do they f a c i l i t a t e enquiry rather than rote learning? Do evaluation a c t i v i t i e s s u i t the objectives? Do evaluation a c t i v i t i e s accommodate student differences? Do students have opportunity for s e l f and group evaluation? 6) Did you require help from someone (eg. consultant, development team member, teacher) to c l a r i f y some aspect of the program? Yes, help was required X No 7) Comment on the involvement of the student i n the unit. Do students become a c t i v e l y involved and interested? Do they perceive i t as relevant, a t t r a c t i v e and meaningful? Does the program b u i l d on the student's own experiences? Is i t student or content oriented? Is there enough variety? Is student decision-making encouraged and choice accommodated? Does i t allow for i n d i v i d u a l i z e d pacing, or must a l l students do the same thing at the same time and in the same way? Answered in interview. 8) Comment on any additional aspects which you f e e l would be helpful to the person revising t h i s program. Suggested areas for comment could include selected aspects from the following: completeness, c l a r i t y , scope, realism, int e r n a l consistency, bias, accuracy, currency, r e a d a b i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , organization, variety, depth, redundancy, f l e x i b i l i t y , c r e a t i v i t y , sequence, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , open-endedness. Answered in interview. 9) What in your opinion, i s the o v e r a l l strength of t h i s program? It gives art students the s k i l l s necessary to become better c r i t i c s of t h e i r own and others works of a r t . Since the v i s i t , I have noticed an improvement in the students quality of images and technical s k i l l s . Fantasic aid for teachers i n planning and preparing c u l t u r a l center v i s i t s . It ensures that the students get maximum b e n i f i t s during the prescribed time. 10) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s t h e o v e r a l l weakness o f t h i s program? The o n l y weakness I found was the l a c k o f time a t t h e g a l l e r y . There was f a r too much work f o r t h e s t u d e n t s t o c o v e r i n 1 1/2 h o u r s . 11) Do you recommend t h a t t h i s u n i t be produced f o r c l a s s r o o m use and d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t the e n t i r e p r o v i n c e ? (check one) (a) w i t h o u t r e v i s i o n s (c) w i t h major r e v i s i o n s (b) X w i t h minor r e v i s i o n s (d) not recommended I f you checked (b) or ( c ) , what s p e c i f i c s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improvement do you recommend? Less work sheet m a t e r i a l f o r t h e s t u d e n t s t o cover would ensure more q u a l i t y o f work as oppossed t o q u a n i t y . TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE This survey i s to obtain your view of the materials prepared for the v i s i t to the Richmond Arts Centre as well as your response to the effectiveness of the actual program. As you are p i l o t i n g this program, please make notations on the following questions as they apply to the objectives, content and teaching-learning .strategies. Your comments w i l l be treated c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . Program T i t l e : Richmond Arts Centre Program Grade l e v e l 10 School: C Characteristics of the classes (e.g., English as a second language, i n t e r e s t l e v e l i n art and the arts, e t c . ) . My class i s pretty much average. There are no r e a l l y unusual types. One student has some d i f f i c u l t y with English, but a l l others are f i n e . Two or three are not t e r r i b l y interested i n ar t . 1) Comment on the significance of the program. Can time a l l o t t e d to the program be j u s t i f i e d ? Is the content worthwhile for the students to pursue? Yes, I think i t i s very worthwhile and my students did enjoy i t . I r e a l l y helped me plan more gallery v i s i t s for the future as I had always been a b i t hesitant to go about i t before. It i s important that students v i s i t museums regularly and learn to view the past and present i n a c r i t i c a l manner and adult fashion. It was a good idea to include the vocabu- lary preparation and s l i d e s as students f e l t f a m i l i a r with the concepts of design and some of the works before the v i s i t . 2) Comment on the appropriateness of the program. Is i t appropriate to the grade levels? Does i t accommodate students of varying a b i l i t i e s and interests? I took grade 10 students and I think i t i s quite appropriate to t h e i r l e v e l . Various a b i l i t i e s are accommodated through the questions and a c t i v i t i e s . I think there i s something for everyone. 3) What i s your o v e r a l l assessment of the unit? I enjoyed i t ! 68. I have used some of the materials on my other classes. The students enjoyed i t o v e r a l l . I t would be nice to do thi s unit early i n the school year. There were some things I could have taught better had we done this e a r l i e r t h i s year. 4) Please complete the following questions by placing an "X" on the response that best f i t s your assessment: The program i s : satisfactory/unsatisfactory Objectives Are they e x p l i c i t and complete? Are they c l e a r l y stated and easy to follow? Are they suited to your time and resource restraints? Are they developed s a t i s f a c t o r i l y throughout the program? Content Is there evidence of bias (ethnic, sex roles, stereotypes)? Are there misstatements or omissions of fact? -sources should have been acknowledged on the same page. Does i t match stated objectives? Is the r e a d a b i l i t y appropriate (vocabulary, sentence structure)? Is i t well organized and easy to follow? Are a variety of resource materials provided or suggested? Is the subject treated i n s u f f i c i e n t depth? Is the content new rather than redundant to students? Teacher-learning Strategies i n Handbook Is variety provided for approaches to the program (opener, developmental, closure)? Are they suited to the objectives? Are there alternatives for d i f f e r e n t teaching- learning styles? Do they encourage c r e a t i v i t y ? Do they encourage a variety of student responses? Do they f a c i l i t a t e enquiry rather than rote learning? Do evaluation a c t i v i t i e s s u i t the objectives? Do evaluation a c t i v i t i e s accommodate student differences? Do students have opportunity for s e l f and group evaluation? 5) Comment on how long i t took you to cover the program i n class time. Approximately 8 class sessions of 1 hour including g a l l e r y v i s i t . 6) Did you require help from someone (e.g., consultant, develop- ment team member, teacher) to c l a r i f y some aspect of the program? X Yes, help was required just to go over some preparation. No 7) Comment on the involvement of the student i n the unit. Do students become a c t i v e l y involved and interested? Do they per- ceive i t as relevant, a t t r a c t i v e and meaningful? Does the program bu i l d on the student's own experiences? Is i t student or content oriented? Is there enough variety? Is student decision-making encouraged and choice accommodated? Does i t allow for i n d i v i d u a l - ized pacing, or must a l l students do the same thing at the same time and i n the same way? Yes, I f e l t my students were involved and interested. I think that i t i s relevant to t h e i r experiences. They enjoyed the v i s i t with the a r t i s t . They found the handouts a t t r a c t i v e and l i k e d having t h e i r own folders. I f e e l t h i s i s a student oriented program. They can go at th e i r own pace and I f e e l the worksheet questions drew some thoughtful answers. There was good opportunity for them to make t h e i r own decis- ions about the artwork and there was a good choice of artwork. Pace was very good. Each person or group could work at th e i r own speed. Some work could be finished i n the classroom too. I f e e l students can take what they've learned and use i t to t h e i r advantage i n planning ongoing work. A clown unit, painting, drawing, sculpture, pri n t s could a l l be the next step aft e r or during this v i s i t . 8) Comment on any additional aspects which you f e e l would be help f u l to the person r e v i s i n g t h i s program. Suggested areas for 70. comment could include selected aspects from the following: completeness, c l a r i t y , scope, realism, in t e r n a l consistency, bias, accuracy, currency, r e a d a b i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , organization, variety, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , open-endedness. I wonder about combining the museum v i s i t with the gal l e r y . Students are seeing the a r t i f a c t s of the past and images of the present and I suppose these can be related by drawing comparisons. I'm,a b i t unsure how to work the museum in with the gal l e r y . 9) What i n your opinion, i s the overall•strength of this program? T e r r i f i c a r t work! I l i k e d the c r i t i c i s m section and the fact that the questions were thought-provoking. The v i s i t from the a r t i s t i s a real h i g h l i g h t . Students think about the art work d i f f e r e n t l y a f t e r meeting him/her. 10) What i n your opinion, i s the o v e r a l l weakness of this program? I found that there was not enough time to cover a l l of the things that the students should see i n the g a l l e r y . The museum section and the gallery show might be s p l i t up. My students found that they did not have enough time to do the worksheets at the gal l e r y . I would have l i k e d to have had them do the gallery work f i r s and then go on to the museum. It seemed l i k e a l o t to see i two hours. They wanted to stay to f i n i s h up, but we had to leave. Or, perhaps the museum could be done at a l a t e r date i n another unit. 11) Do you recommend that t h i s unit be produced for classroom use and d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the entire province? (check one) (a) without revisions (c) with major revisions (b) X with minor revisions (c) not recommended If you checked (b) or (c), what s p e c i f i c suggestions for improve ment do you recommend? TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE T h i s s u r v e y i s t o o b t a i n y o u r v i e w o f t h e m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r e d f o r t h e v i s i t t o t h e Richmond A r t s C e n t r e as w e l l as y o u r r e s p o n s e t o t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e a c t u a l p r o g r a m . As y o u a r e p i l o t - i n g t h i s p r o g r a m , p l e a s e make n o t a t i o n s on t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s - t i o n s as t h e y a p p l y t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s , c o n t e n t and t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Y o u r comments w i l l be t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n - t i a l l y . P r o g r a m T i t l e : Richmond A r t s C e n t r e P r o g r a m Grade l e v e l 11/12 S c h o o l : D C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e c l a s s e s ( e . g . , E n g l i s h as a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e , i n t e r e s t l e v e l i n a r t and t h e a r t s , e t c . ) . A r t 11 and 12 w i t h some ESL. S e v e r a l s t u d e n t s have t a k e n many a r t c o u r s e s i n S e n i o r and J u n i o r s c h o o l , w h i l e some a r e t a k i n g t h e i r f i r s t a r t c o u r s e s i n c e g r a d e 8. 1) Comment on t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e p r o g r a m . Can t i m e a l l o t - t e d t o t h e p r o g r a m be j u s t i f i e d ? I s t h e c o n t e n t w o r t h w h i l e f o r t h e s t u d e n t s t o p u r s u e ? Time t o t h e g a l l e r y i s j u s t i f i e d b u t "program" s h o u l d be p r e c e d e d by l e a r n i n g r e l a t e d t o t h e r e s p o n s e s demanded. 2) Comment on t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e p r o g r a m . I s i t ap- p r o p r i a t e t o t h e g r a d e l e v e l s ? Does i t accommodate s t u d e n t s o f v a r y i n g a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s ? Y e s , a p p r o x i m a t e t o g r a d e l e v e l . 3) What i s y o u r o v e r a l l a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e u n i t ? S p e c i f i c i n t e n t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g outcomes and what l e a d s up t o them s p e c i f i c a l l y c o u l d be d e a l t w i t h . O t h e r w i s e i t i s a v e r y good c u l t u r a l c e n t r e e x p e r i e n c e p r o c e s s . 4) P l e a s e c o m p l e t e t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s by p l a c i n g an "X" on t h e r e s p o n s e t h a t b e s t f i t s y o u r a s s e s s m e n t : The p r o g r a m i s : s a t i s f a c t o r y / u n s a t i s f a c t o r y O b j e c t i v e s A r e t h e y e x p l i c i t and c o m p l e t e ? 72. A r e t h e y c l e a r l y s t a t e d and e a s y t o f o l l o w ? A r e t h e y s u i t e d t o y o u r t i m e and r e s o u r c e r e s t r a i n t s ? A r e t h e y d e v e l o p e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y t h o u g h o u t t h e p r o g r a m ? C o n t e n t I s t h e r e e v i d e n c e o f b i a s ( e t h n i c , s e x r o l e s , s t e r e o - t y p e s ) ? A r e t h e r e m i s t a t e m e n t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f f a c t ? - s o u r c e s s h o u l d have b e e n a c k n o w l e d g e d on t h e same p a g e . Does i t m a t c h s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s ? Is t h e r e a d i b i l i t y a p p r o p r i a t e ( v o c a b u l a r y , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e ) ? Is i t w e l l o r g a n i z e d and e a s y t o f o l l o w ? A r e a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d o r s u g g e s t e d ? I s t h e s u b j e c t t r e a t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t d e p t h ? Is t h e c o n t e n t new r a t h e r t h a n r e d u n d a n t t o s t u d e n t s ? T e a c h e r - l e a r n i n g S t r a t e g i e s i n Handbook I s v a r i e t y p r o v i d e d f o r a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e p r o g r a m ( o p e n e r , d e v e l o p m e n t a l , c l o s u r e ) ? A r e t h e y s u i t e d t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s ? A r e t h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s t y l e s ? Do t h e y e n c o u r a g e c r e a t i v i t y : Do t h e y e n c o u r a g e a v a r i e t y o f s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s ? Do t h e y f a c i l i t a t e e n q u i r y r a t h e r t h a n r o t e l e a r n i n g ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s u i t t h e o b j e c t i v e s ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s accommodate s t u d e n t d i f f e r e n c e s ? Do s t u d e n t s have o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s e l f and g r o u p e v a l u a t i o n ? 5) Comment on how l o n g i t took you t o c o v e r t h e program i n c l a s s t i m e . 6 h o u r s . 6) D i d you r e q u i r e h e l p from someone (eg. c o n s u l t a n t , development team member, t e a c h e r ) t o c l a r i f y some a s p e c t o f t h e program? X Yes, h e l p was r e q u i r e d . No 7) Comment on the i n v o l v e m e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t i n the u n i t . Do s t u d e n t s become a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d and i n t e r e s t e d ? Do t h e y p e r c e i v e i t as r e l e v a n t , a t t r a c t i v e and m e a n i n g f u l ? Does the program b u i l d on t h e s t u d e n t ' s own e x p e r i e n c e s ? I s i t s t u d e n t or c o n t e n t o r i e n t e d ? I s t h e r e enough v a r i e t y ? I s s t u d e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g encouraged and c h o i c e accommodated? Does i t a l l o w f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d p a c i n g , or must a l l s t u d e n t s do the same t h i n g a t t h e same ti m e and i n the same way? St u d e n t s v e r y low key. 8) Comment on any a d d i t i o n a l a s p e c t s which you f e e l would be h e l p f u l t o t h e p e r s o n r e v i s i n g t h i s program. Suggested a r e a s f o r comment c o u l d i n c l u d e s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s from t h e f o l l o w i n g : c o m p l e t e n e s s , c l a r i t y , scope, r e a l i s m , i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , b i a s , a c c u r a c y , c u r r e n c y , r e a d a b i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , v a r i e t y , d e p t h , redundancy, f l e x i b i l i t y , c r e a t i v i t y , sequence, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , open-endedness. Need f o r p r e - t e a c h i n g s p e c i f i c s - g i v e u n i t on l e a r n i n g t o approach c r i t i c i s m . Q estion/answer placement on page. 9) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s the o v e r a l l s t r e n g t h o f t h i s program? D i r e c t e d s e e i n g i n a g a l l e r y s e t t i n g . 10) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s the o v e r a l l weakness o f t h i s program? How s t u d e n t s p e r f o r m depends more on p r e v i o u s l e a r n i n g . 11) Do you recommend t h a t t h i s u n i t be produced f o r c l a s s r o o m use and d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t the e n t i r e p r o v i n c e ? (check one) 74. (a) without revisions (c) with major revisions (b) with minor revisions (d) not recommended If you checked (b) or (c), what s p e c i f i c suggestions for improvement do you recommend? VOLUNTEER EDUCATION OFFICER FOR RICHMOND ART GALLERY DUTIES Contacts a r t i s t s f or upcoming shows and interviews them, prepares brochures and information for the public, s e l e c t s , trains and supervises docents, organizes tours for the public, a s s i s t s i n the selection of films, speakers, etc., to enhance exhibitions. QUALIFICATIONS Art history degree or equivalent combination of tr a i n i n g and experience. A b i l i t y to deal courteously and e f f e c t i v e l y with the public, a r t i s t s and to work closely with the Gallery Committee A b i l i t y to v i s i t a r t i s t s ' studios when necessary A b i l i t y to write c l e a r l y and concisely and to communicate e f f e c t i v e l y HOURS OF WORK W i l l vary considerably - approximately 5 hours per week - some at Arts Centre and some at home. Contact P. Hope-Smith - Arts Centre Co-ordinator 76. ACTING GALLERY CO-ORDINATOR GALLERY QUESTIONNAIRE This survey i s to obtain your view of the materials prepared for the v i s i t to the Richmond Arts Centre as well as your response to the effectiveness of the actual program. As you are p i l o t i n g t h i s program, please make notations on the following questions as they apply to the objectives, content and teaching-learning strategies. Your comments w i l l be treated c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . Program T i t l e : Richmond Arts Centre Program 1) Comment on the sign i f i c a n c e of the program. Can time a l l o t t e d to the program be j u s t i f i e d ? Is the content worthwhile for the students to pursue? Time e a s i l y j u s t i f i e d . Program provides background information and gives each student something to look f o r . 2) Comment on the appropriateness of the program. Is i t appropriate to the Gallery space? Does i t accomodate students of varying a b i l i t i e s and interests? Yes - both g a l l e r y and schools need to be concerned about set up and damage when a group i s in the g a l l e r y . 3) What i s your o v e r a l l assessment of student v i s i t s to the Gallery? Written sheets gave the students a reason to view the show c a r e f u l l y , but at times I f e l t t h i s format was a b i t r e s t i c t i v e - c e r t a i n l y wouldn't want to see t h i s each time. Giving the students an opportunity to interact with a r t i s t s was an excellent idea. Smaller groups could be organized for these age groups with g a l l e r y co-operation. 4) Please complete the following questions by placing an "X" on the response that best f i t s your assessment: The program i s : satisfactory/unsatisfactory Objectives Are they e x p l i c i t and complete? Are t h e y c l e a r l y s t a t e d and easy t o f o l l o w ? Are t h e y s u i t e d t o your t i m e and r e s o u r c e r e s t r a i n t s ? A r e t h e y d e v e l o p e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y thoughout the program? Content I s t h e r e e v i d e n c e of b i a s ( e t h n i c , sex r o l e s , s t e r e o - t y p e s ) ? Are t h e r e m i s t a t e m e n t s or o m i s s i o n s o f f a c t ? Does i t match s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s ? I s t h e r e a d i b i l i t y a p p r o p r i a t e ( v o c a b u l a r y , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e ) ? I s i t w e l l o r g a n i z e d and easy t o f o l l o w ? Are a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d o r suggested? I s t h e s u b j e c t t r e a t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t depth? Is t h e c o n t e n t new r a t h e r than redundant t o s t u d e n t s ? T e a c h e r - l e a r n i n g S t r a t e g i e s i n Handbook I s v a r i e t y p r o v i d e d f o r approaches t o t h e program (opener, d e v e l o p m e n t a l , c l o s u r e ) ? Are t h e y s u i t e d t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s ? Are t h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s t y l e s ? Do t h e y encourage c r e a t i v i t y : Do t h e y encourage a v a r i e t y o f s t u d e n t responses? Do t h e y f a c i l i t a t e e n q u i r y r a t h e r t h a n r o t e l e a r n i n g ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s u i t t h e o b j e c t i v e s ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s accommodate s t u d e n t d i f f e r e n c e s ? Do s t u d e n t s have o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s e l f and group e v a l u a t i o n ? 78. 5) D i d you r e q u i r e h e l p from someone (eg. c o n s u l t a n t , development team member, f e l l o w t e a c h e r ) t o c l a r i f y some a s p e c t o f the program? Yes, h e l p was r e q u i r e d No 6) Comment on the i n v o l v e m e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t i n the u n i t . Do s t u d e n t s become a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d and i n t e r e s t e d ? Do t h e y p e r c e i v e i t as r e l e v a n t , a t t r a c t i v e and m e a n i n g f u l ? Does the program b u i l d on t h e s t u d e n t ' s own e x p e r i e n c e s ? I s i t s t u d e n t or c o n t e n t o r i e n t e d ? I s t h e r e enough v a r i e t y ? I s s t u d e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g encouraged and c h o i c e accommodated? Does i t a l l o w f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d p a c i n g , or must a l l s t u d e n t s do the same t h i n g a t t h e same time and i n the same way? 7) Comment on any a d d i t i o n a l a s p e c t s which you f e e l would be h e l p f u l t o t h e p e r s o n r e v i s i n g t h i s program. Suggested a r e a s f o r comment c o u l d i n c l u d e s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s from t h e f o l l o w i n g : c o m p l e t e n e s s , c l a r i t y , scope, r e a l i s m , i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , b i a s , a c c u r a c y , c u r r e n c y , r e a d a b i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , v a r i e t y , d e p t h , redundancy, f l e x i b i l i t y , c r e a t i v i t y , sequence, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , open-endedness. 8) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s the o v e r a l l s t r e n g t h o f t h i s program? Made us t h i n k about our o b j e c t i v e s and perhaps made s c h o o l s do the same. Might a l s o make s t u d e n t s see p o s s i b l e o b j e c t i v e s as t h e y p e r t a i n t o t h e m s e l v e s . W o r t h w h i l e c a r r y i n g on - more work as f a r as the g a l l e r y i s c o n c e r n e d . 9) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s t h e o v e r a l l weakness o f t h i s program? Concerned t h a t the show would be geared s t r i c t l y t o s c h o o l a u d i e n c e . There i s a danger h e r e . 10) Do you recommend t h a t t h i s u n i t be produced f o r G a l l e r y use and d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t the e n t i r e p r o v i n c e ? (check one) (a) w i t h o u t r e v i s i o n s (c) w i t h major r e v i s i o n s (b) x w i t h minor r e v i s i o n s (d) not recommended I f you checked (b) or ( c ) , what s p e c i f i c s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improvement do you recommend? Once would be OK per c l a s s . Would l i k e t o see s m a l l e r g r o u p s , w i t h d o c e n t s t o t a l k t o s t u d e n t s . More f u n and group d i s c u s s i o n . 80. ACTING MUSEUM CURATOR MUSEUM QUESTIONNAIRE T h i s s u r v e y i s t o o b t a i n your v i e w o f the m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r e d f o r t h e v i s i t t o t h e Richmond A r t s C e n t r e as w e l l as your response t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the a c t u a l program. As you are p i l o t i n g t h i s program, p l e a s e make n o t a t i o n s on t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s as t h e y a p p l y t o the o b j e c t i v e s , c o n t e n t and t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Your comments w i l l be t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . Program T i t l e : Richmond A r t s C e n t r e Program 1) Comment on the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the program. Can time a l l o t t e d t o t h e program be j u s t i f i e d ? I s t h e c o n t e n t w o r t h w h i l e f o r t h e s t u d e n t s t o pursue? Time spent i n a museum can always be j u s t i f i e d and t h e c o n t e n t , i f p r e s e n t e d i n a p r o p e r manner, can open a door t o new and e x c i t i n g f i e l d s . 2) Comment on the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e program. I s i t a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e Museum space? Does i t accomodate s t u d e n t s o f v a r y i n g a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s ? I t can accommodate s t u d e n t s o f v a r y i n g a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s , but t h e program cannot be j u s t i f i e d i f approached by the s t u d e n t s from an % a r t c r i t i q u e * v i e w p o i n t . A museum o f f e r s a unique o p p o r t u n i t y f o r an i n - d e p t h l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e ! 3) What i s your o v e r a l l assessment o f s t u d e n t v i s i t s t o the Museum? Student v i s i t s g e n e r a l l y e x c e l l e n t . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , your g r o u p s , l a c k i n g p r o p e r g u i d a n c e (no docent t o e x p l a i n t h e e x h i b i t s ) , p r o b a b l y missed much i n f o r m a t i o n . 4) P l e a s e complete t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s by p l a c i n g an "X" on the response t h a t b e s t f i t s your assessment: The program i s : F e l t not q u a n t i f i e d t o answer. s a t i s f a c t o r y / u n s a t i s f a c t o r y O b j e c t i v e s Are t h e y e x p l i c i t and complete? Are t h e y c l e a r l y s t a t e d and easy t o f o l l o w ? Are t h e y s u i t e d t o your time and r e s o u r c e r e s t r a i n t s ? Are t h e y d e v e l o p e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y thoughout t h e program? Content I s t h e r e e v i d e n c e o f b i a s ( e t h n i c , sex r o l e s , s t e r e o - t y p e s ) ? Are t h e r e m i s t a t e m e n t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f f a c t ? Does i t match s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s ? I s t h e r e a d i b i l i t y a p p r o p r i a t e ( v o c a b u l a r y , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e ) ? I s i t w e l l o r g a n i z e d and easy t o f o l l o w ? Are a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d or suggested? I s t h e s u b j e c t t r e a t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t depth? Is t h e c o n t e n t new r a t h e r than redundant t o s t u d e n t s ? T e a c h e r - l e a r n i n g S t r a t e g i e s i n Handbook I s v a r i e t y p r o v i d e d f o r approaches t o the program (opener, d e v e l o p m e n t a l , c l o s u r e ) ? Are t h e y s u i t e d t o the o b j e c t i v e s ? Are t h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s t y l e s ? Do t h e y encourage c r e a t i v i t y : Do t h e y encourage a v a r i e t y o f s t u d e n t r e sponses? Do t h e y f a c i l i t a t e e n q u i r y r a t h e r than r o t e l e a r n i n g ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s u i t t he o b j e c t i v e s ? Do e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s accommodate s t u d e n t d i f f e r e n c e s ? Do s t u d e n t s have o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s e l f and group e v a l u a t i o n ? 5) D i d you r e q u i r e h e l p from someone (eg. c o n s u l t a n t , development team member, t e a c h e r ) t o c l a r i f y some a s p e c t the program? 82. x Yes, h e l p was r e q u i r e d No 6) Comment on the i n v o l v e m e n t o f the s t u d e n t i n t h e u n i t . Do s t u d e n t s become a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d and i n t e r e s t e d ? Do t h e y p e r c e i v e i t as r e l e v a n t , a t t r a c t i v e and m e a n i n g f u l ? Does t h e program b u i l d on t h e s t u d e n t ' s own e x p e r i e n c e s ? I s i t s t u d e n t or c o n t e n t o r i e n t e d ? I s t h e r e enough v a r i e t y ? I s s t u d e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g encouraged and c h o i c e accommodated? Does i t a l l o w f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d p a c i n g , or must a l l s t u d e n t s do t h e same t h i n g a t t h e same t i m e and i n t h e same way? 7) Comment on any a d d i t i o n a l a s p e c t s which you f e e l would be h e l p f u l t o t h e p e r s o n r e v i s i n g t h i s program. Suggested a r e a s f o r comment c o u l d i n c l u d e s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s from t h e f o l l o w i n g : c o m p l e t e n e s s , c l a r i t y , scope, r e a l i s m , i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , b i a s , a c c u r a c y , c u r r e n c y , r e a d a b i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , v a r i e t y , d e p t h , redundancy, f l e x i b i l i t y , c r e a t i v i t y , sequence, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , open-endedness. W r i t t e n work, never t a k e s p l a c e o f p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e . A docent would be r e q u i r e d t o make t h i s v i s i t a s u c c e s s . There i s a need f o r a normal museum approach. A r t g a l l e r i e s and h i s t o r y museums are not compatable. Found i t d i f f i c u l t t o see how one c o u l d approach a museum from t h e p o i n t of v i e w o f "form" as i t i s m o s t l y concerned w i t h " f u n c t i o n " . 8) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s the o v e r a l l s t r e n g t h o f t h i s program? 9) What i n your o p i n i o n , i s the o v e r a l l weakness o f t h i s program? 10) Do you recommend t h a t t h i s u n i t be produced f o r Museum use and d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e p r o v i n c e ? (check one) (a) w i t h o u t r e v i s i o n s (c) w i t h major r e v i s i o n s (b) w i t h minor r e v i s i o n s (d) x not recommended I f you checked (b) or ( c ) , what s p e c i f i c s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improvement do you recommend? Not recommended under p r e s e n t f o r m a t . 83. F o r t h e f u t u r e : The museum s h o u l d be i n v o l v e d i n t a k i n g m a t e r i a l s t o t h e e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l . There are no s p e c i f i c p l a n s f o r t h e secondary s c h o o l s . INTRODUCTION TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE T h i s p r o j e c t has been p l a n n e d t o e x p l o r e ways t h a t t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s may a c h i e v e c l o s e r l i a i s o n s w i t h l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s i n t h e i r communities. I t i s i n t e n d e d t o e n r i c h t h e i r v i e w i n g e x p e r i e n c e s which i n t u r n w i l l l e a d t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e v a r i o u s f a c e t s which make up t h e 8-12 A r t F o u n d a t i o n component o f t h e new A r t C u r r i c u l u m . W i t h o u t g i v i n g your name, o n l y your g r a d e , p l e a s e answer the q u e s t i o n n a i r e about your e x p e r i e n c e a t t h e Richmond A r t s C e n t r e . I f t h e r e i s a p o r t i o n o f t h e s h e e t s t h a t you do not w i s h t o answer you have the r i g h t t o r e f u s e t o p a r t i c i p a t e or withdraw a t any t i m e . The s h e e t s s h o u l d t a k e you about 20 minutes t o compl e t e . When t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s completed i t w i l l be assumed t h a t you have con s e n t e d t o t a k e p a r t i n t h i s s t u d y . 85. YOUR REACTION ( a f t e r D a v i s , 1981) GRADES 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 12 COMBINED STUDENT RESPONSE P l e a s e t e l l us how you f e e l about t h e t h i n g s you d i d d u r i n g the u n i t MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE. There a re no r i g h t or wrong answers. Your r e a c t i o n w i l l h e l p us t o r e v i s e the program. 1) I t h i n k t h i s program l i n e ) was . . . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g the Easy t o u n d e r s t a n d 8 26 27 6 2 Hard t o un d e r s t a n d I n t e r e s t i n g 15 11 21 15 7 B o r i n g Important t o l e a r n 11 14 20 16 8 Not i m p o r t a n t Too l o n g 7 7 22 16 17 Too s h o r t Moving t o o f a s t 9 18 26 8 7 Moving t o o s l o w l y W o r t h w h i l e and v a l u a b l e 10 18 28 7 6 Not v e r y w o r t h w h i l e or v a l u a b l e What e l s e ? 2) W h i l e d o i n g t h i s program I . l i n e ) . . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g the O f t e n d i s c u s s e d i t 8 a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s Seldom f e l t 16 co n f u s e d O f t e n asked 5 q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s I 17 never knew b e f o r e Broadened my know- 18 18 le d g e about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 15 13 27 14 18 10 11 18 14 24 20 20 13 5 8 7 6 Seldom d i s c u s s e d i t a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s O f t e n f e l t c o n f u s e d Seldom asked q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s I a l r e a d y knew b e f o r e D i d not broaden my knowledge about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 86 What e l s e ? Student Responses: 3) I l e a r n e d most i n t h i s program by (Check as many as you wish) 18 T a k i n g n o t e s . 55 V i e w i n g the a r t show and the h i s t o r y museum. 36 L i s t e n i n g t o the t e a c h e r . 30 Watching t h e s l i d e s . 23 Having c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s . 36 Doing t h e s t u d y as a group. 28 Doing t h e w r i t t e n e x e r c i s e s and w r i t i n g answers t o q u e s t i o n s . 8 Having the t e a c h e r ask me q u e s t i o n s . 22 Working by m y s e l f . 34 L i s t e n i n g t o what o t h e r s t u d e n t s have t o s a y . 19 A s k i n g r e s o u r c e p e o p l e f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s . ( a r t i s t s , docent e t c . ) 4 Working i n the l i b r a r y l o o k i n g up f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . 13 B e i n g g i v e n t h e answers t o the q u e s t i o n s by the t e a c h e r . 38 E x p r e s s i n g my own o p i n i o n . 11 D i s a g r e e i n g w i t h the t e a c h e r or o t h e r s t u d e n t s . 24 F i n d i n g out answers f o r m y s e l f . 25 A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s . What e l s e ? 87. 4) I found i t hard i n t h i s u n i t t o (Check as many as you wish) 19 Understand the q u e s t i o n s . 27 Answer the a s s i g n e d q u e s t i o n s . 17 Watch t h e s l i d e s . 15 Work by m y s e l f on t h e a s s i g n m e n t s . 4 Work w i t h o t h e r s on the group p r o j e c t s . 28 F i n d i n f o r m a t i o n t o answer the q u e s t i o n s . 23 Become i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e t o p i c . 22 Make sense out o f t h e assignment. 17 Ask q u e s t i o n s . 13 F o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s on the handouts. 14 Remember what I saw a t t h e Richmond A r t s C e n t r e . 23 F i g u r e out why we had t o do t h i s p r o j e c t . What e l s e ? 5) What I l i k e b e s t about t h e program was.. Exposure t o a r t . 27 The h i s t o r y museum. 16 Meetin g the a r t i s t . 13 Seeing t h e c l o w n s . 10 P r o j e c t work, s l i d e s , s k e t c h i n g . 7 A r t i s t ' s works. 7 R e a l i s t i c a r t . 2 6) What I l i k e d l e a s t about the program was Q u e s t i o n s , n o t e s , work. 29 Not enough t i m e . 10 A r t , c l o w n s , p i c t u r e s . 8 The h i s t o r y museum. 7 S l i d e s , l e c t u r e s , and c l a s s work. 6 A b s t r a c t a r t . 5 Having p i c t u r e t a k e n . 4 Poor a i r - smokers. 4 Q u e s t i o n a i r e form. 3 Set-up o f museum. 2 7) What I would l i k e t o change i n t h i s program i s More time f o r v i e w i n g . 18 More v a r i e t y o f a r t and s c u l p t u r e . 16 Less w r i t i n g , d r a w i n g . 15 Use o n l y h i s t o r y museum. 7 More a r t i s t s i n p e r s o n . 5 P i c k l a r g e r museum. 4 Do not have program over l u n c h t i m e . 3 No h i s t o r y museum. 2 Add music. 2 A r t more r e l a t e d t o age group. 2 No p i c t u r e t a k i n g . 2 No smoking. 4 q u e s a l l 8 9 . YOUR REACTION SCHOOL A GRADE 8 STUDENT RESPONSE P l e a s e t e l l us how you f e e l about the t h i n g s you d i d d u r i n g the u n i t MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE. There a r e no r i g h t o r wrong answers. Your r e a c t i o n w i l l h e l p us t o r e v i s e the program. 1) I t h i n k t h i s program l i n e ) i was . . . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g the Easy t o un d e r s t a n d 3 8 9 1 1 Hard t o und e r s t a n d I n t e r e s t i n g 1 4 5 6 6 B o r i n g Important t o l e a r n 1 4 5 7 5 Not i m p o r t a n t Too l o n g 3 1 3 4 11 Too s h o r t Moving t o o f a s t 3 3 8 3 5 Moving too s l o w l y W o r t h w h i l e and v a l u a b l e 1 4 12 1 4 Not v e r y w o r t h w h i l e or v a l u a b l e What e l s e ? 2) W h i l e d o i n g t h i s program I, l i n e ) O f t e n d i s c u s s e d i t 1 4 4 at home or w i t h f r i e n d s . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g t h e 3 11 Seldom d i s c u s s e d i t a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s Seldom f e l t : co n f u s e d O f t e n asked ] q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s I ! never knew b e f o r e Broadened my know- 6 l e d g e about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 3 3 O f t e n f e l t c o n f u s e d 8 2 Seldom asked q u e s t i o n s 4 Learned t h i n g s I a l r e a d y knew b e f o r e D i d not broaden my knowledge about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 90. What e l s e ? Student Responses: 3) I l e a r n e d most i n t h i s program by (Check as many as you wish) 4 T a k i n g n o t e s . 16 V i e w i n g t h e a r t show and t h e h i s t o r y museum. 10 L i s t e n i n g t o t h e t e a c h e r . 8 Watching t h e s l i d e s . 7 Having c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s . 15 Doing t h e s t u d y as a group. 7 Doing t h e w r i t t e n e x e r c i s e s and w r i t i n g answers t o q u e s t i o n s . 4 Having t h e t e a c h e r ask me q u e s t i o n s . 3 Working by m y s e l f . 8 L i s t e n i n g t o what o t h e r s t u d e n t s have t o say. 4 A s k i n g r e s o u r c e p e o p l e f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s . ( a r t i s t s , docent e t c . ) 2 Working i n the l i b r a r y l o o k i n g up f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . 3 B e i n g g i v e n the answers t o the q u e s t i o n s by t h e t e a c h e r . 8 E x p r e s s i n g my own o p i n i o n . 3 D i s a g r e e i n g w i t h the t e a c h e r or o t h e r s t u d e n t s . 4 F i n d i n g out answers f o r m y s e l f . 8 A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s . What e l s e ? 91. 4) I found i t hard i n t h i s u n i t t o (Check as many as you wish) 6 Understand the q u e s t i o n s . 8 Answer the a s s i g n e d q u e s t i o n s . 4 Watch t h e s l i d e s . 8 Work by m y s e l f on the a s s i g n m e n t s . 1 Work w i t h o t h e r s on the group p r o j e c t s . 14 F i n d i n f o r m a t i o n t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s . 9 Become i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e t o p i c . 5 Make sense out o f t h e assignment. 7 Ask q u e s t i o n s . 4 F o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e handouts. 6 Remember what I saw a t the Richmond A r t s C e n t r e . 10 F i g u r e out why we had t o do t h i s p r o j e c t . What e l s e ? 5) What I l i k e b e s t about t h e program was. "Meeting the A r t i s t . " 2 " S k e t c h i n g i n t h e a r t g a l l e r y . " 3 " V i s i t i n g t he H i s t o r y Museum." 2 "The hands-on s c u l p t u r e . " 1 "Seeing the clown s c u l p t u r e s . " 4 "L o o k i n g a t Nora H a r r i s 1 work." 3 "Seeing t h e p a i n t i n g s . " 3 "Seeing t h e a r t g a l l e r y . " 4 "Viewing the s l i d e s i n c l a s s . " 1 6) What I l i k e d l e a s t about the program was "Answering q u e s t i o n s . " 2 "Taking n o t e s . " 2 "Not enough t i m e . " 1 " A r t i s t used t o o many b i g words."1 " B o r i n g . " 4 "Too much d r a w i n g . " 3 " A b s t r a c t a r t . " 1 "The a r t room." 2 7 ) What I would l i k e t o change i n t h i s program "Only use t h e Museum." 1 "There needs t o be more a r t and s c u l p t u r e . " 5 " A r t r e l a t i n g t o age group." 2 "More time i n the museum." 2 "Spend money on another k i n d o f o u t i n g . " 1 "More t i m e f o r a r t v i e w i n g . " 5 "Less work." 4 "Not have t h e program a t / o v e r l u n c h t i m e . " 3 "Meet more a r t i s t s . " 1 "Speed up the program." 1 q u e s 8 YOUR REACTION SCHOOL B GRADE 9 STUDENT RESPONSE P l e a s e t e l l us how you f e e l about t h e t h i n g s you d i d d u r i n g t h e u n i t MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE. There a re no r i g h t o r wrong answers. Your r e a c t i o n w i l l h e l p us t o r e v i s e the program. 1) I t h i n k t h i s program w a s . . . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g the l i n e ) Easy t o un d e r s t a n d 1 7 6 3 1 Hard t o u n d e r s t a n d I n t e r e s t i n g 5 3 7 2 1 B o r i n g Important t o l e a r n 5 2 5 5 1 Not i m p o r t a n t Too l o n g 0 3 5 6 4 Too s h o r t Moving t o o f a s t 4 4 6 2 2 Moving too s l o w l y W o r t h w h i l e and v a l u a b l e 3 6 5 2 2 Not v e r y w o r t h w h i l e or v a l u a b l e What e l s e ? 2) W h i l e d o i n g t h i s program I, l i n e ) O f t e n d i s c u s s e d i t a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s Seldom f e l t c o n f u s e d O f t e n asked q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s I never knew b e f o r e Broadened my know- l e d g e about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 0 3 3 3 7 6 4 . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g t h e Seldom d i s c u s s e d i t a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s O f t e n f e l t c o n f u s e d 5 4 Seldom asked q u e s t i o n s 2 2 Learned t h i n g s I a l r e a d y knew b e f o r e 2 1 D i d not broaden my knowledge about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s What e l s e ? Student Responses: 3) I l e a r n e d most i n t h i s program by (Check as many as you wish) 8 T a k i n g n o t e s . 14 V i e w i n g t h e a r t show and the h i s t o r y museum. 10 L i s t e n i n g t o t h e t e a c h e r . 9 Watching t h e s l i d e s . 4 Having c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s . 11 Doing t h e s t u d y as a group. 8 Doing t h e w r i t t e n e x e r c i s e s and w r i t i n g answers t o q u e s t i o n s . 2 Having the t e a c h e r ask me q u e s t i o n s . 6 Working by m y s e l f . 11 L i s t e n i n g t o what o t h e r s t u d e n t s have t o say. 5 A s k i n g r e s o u r c e p e o p l e f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s . ( a r t i s t s , d ocent e t c . ) 1 Working i n the l i b r a r y l o o k i n g up f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . 6 B e i n g g i v e n t h e answers t o the q u e s t i o n s by t h e t e a c h e r . 12 E x p r e s s i n g my own o p i n i o n . 4 D i s a g r e e i n g w i t h the t e a c h e r o r o t h e r s t u d e n t s . 10 F i n d i n g out answers f o r m y s e l f . 9 A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s . What e l s e ? "Got the i n f o r m a t i o n from the t e a c h e r s . " 2 95. 4) I found i t hard i n t h i s u n i t t o (Check as many as you wish) 6 Understand t h e q u e s t i o n s . 9 Answer t h e a s s i g n e d q u e s t i o n s . 4 Watch t h e s l i d e s . 5 Work by m y s e l f on t h e a s s i g n m e n t s . 0 Work w i t h o t h e r s on t h e group p r o j e c t s . 10 F i n d i n f o r m a t i o n t o answer the q u e s t i o n s . 6 Become i n t e r e s t e d i n the t o p i c . 7 Make sense out o f t h e assignment. 5 Ask q u e s t i o n s . 4 F o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e handouts. 4 Remember what I saw a t the Richmond A r t s C e n t r e . 8 F i g u r e out why we had t o do t h i s p r o j e c t . What e l s e ? " U n d e r s t a n d i n g and l i s t e n i n g t o the s p e a k e r . " 2 "There was not enough time t o complete t h e work."2 " F i n d i n g the meaning i n the works." 3 "Doing t h e s k e t c h e s q u i c k l y . " 1 5) What I l i k e b e s t about t h e program was "The h i s t o r y museum." 5 "H e a r i n g t h e a r t i s t " . 2 "Seeing r e a l i s t i c a r t . " 1 " W e l l o r g a n i z e d . " 1 "Seeing the clown s c u l p t u r e s . " 3 "H e a r i n g d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s . " 1 " M i s s i n g s c h o o l . " 1 6) What I l i k e d l e a s t about t h e program was "Answering q u e s t i o n s . " 11 "Taking n o t e s . " 2 "Not enough t i m e . " 3 " A r t i s t used too many b i g words."1 "The h i s t o r y museum." 3 " A b s t r a c t a r t . " 1 "There was not t i m e t o t a l k . " 1 7) What I would l i k e t o change i n t h i s program i s "Less p a i n t i n g s . " 1 "There needs t o be more a r t and s c u l p t u r e . " 4 "Needs t o be more v i s u a l l y e x c i t i n g . " 1 "More time i n the a r t g a l l e r y . " 3 "More i n f o r m a t i o n r e : S t e v e s t o n . " 1 "No w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s . " 2 "Would l i k e t o meet more a r t i s t s . " 2 "Add music." 2 "More t i m e . " 2 ques9 97. YOUR REACTION SCHOOL C GRADE 10 STUDENT RESPONSE P l e a s e t e l l us how you f e e l about the t h i n g s you d i d d u r i n g the u n i t MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE. There a r e no r i g h t o r wrong answers. Your r e a c t i o n w i l l h e l p us t o r e v i s e the program. 1) I t h i n k t h i s program l i n e ) was . . . ( p l a c e a check ; mark a l o n g the Easy t o un d e r s t a n d 2 8 2 0 0 Hard t o un d e r s t a n d I n t e r e s t i n g 7 2 2 1 0 B o r i n g Important t o l e a r n 4 4 4 0 0 Not i m p o r t a n t Too l o n g 1 1 7 2 1 Too s h o r t Moving t o o f a s t 1 5 5 0 0 Moving too s l o w l y W o r t h w h i l e and v a l u a b l e 5 5 2 0 0 Not v e r y w o r t h w h i l e or v a l u a b l e What e l s e ? 2) W h i l e d o i n g t h i s program I, l i n e ) O f t e n d i s c u s s e d i t 3 2 3 a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g the Seldom d i s c u s s e d i t a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s Seldom f e l t 4 3 5 co n f u s e d O f t e n asked 1 3 4 q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s 1 7 3 1 never knew b e f o r e Broadened my know- 6 3 2 le d g e about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 0 0 O f t e n f e l t c o n f u s e d Seldom asked q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s I a l r e a d y knew b e f o r e D i d not broaden my knowledge about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 9 8 . What e l s e ? Student Responses: 3) I l e a r n e d most i n t h i s program by wish) (Check as many as you 1 11 7 4 7 7 8 1 5 9 7 1 1 10 2 5 6 Ta k i n g n o t e s . V i e w i n g the a r t show and the h i s t o r y museum. L i s t e n i n g t o the t e a c h e r . Watching the s l i d e s . Having c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s . Doing the s t u d y as a group. Doing t h e w r i t t e n e x e r c i s e s and w r i t i n g answers t o q u e s t i o n s . Having the t e a c h e r ask me q u e s t i o n s . Working by m y s e l f . L i s t e n i n g t o what o t h e r s t u d e n t s have t o s a y . A s k i n g r e s o u r c e p e o p l e f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s . ( a r t i s t s , docent e t c . ) Working i n the l i b r a r y l o o k i n g up f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . B e i n g g i v e n the answers t o the q u e s t i o n s by t h e t e a c h e r . E x p r e s s i n g my own o p i n i o n . D i s a g r e e i n g w i t h the t e a c h e r o r o t h e r s t u d e n t s . F i n d i n g out answers f o r m y s e l f . A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s . What e l s e ? II n n L i s t e n i n g t o the a r t i s t . " T h i n k i n g about t h e a r t . " T a l k i n g t o a r t s t u d e n t s . " 3 1 1 " L o o k i n g up the v o c a b u l a r y . " 1 99. 4) I found i t hard i n t h i s u n i t t o (Check as many as you wish) 2 Understand the q u e s t i o n s . 6 Answer t h e a s s i g n e d q u e s t i o n s . 3 Watch the s l i d e s . 0 Work by m y s e l f on the a s s i g n m e n t s . 0 Work w i t h o t h e r s on t h e group p r o j e c t s . 1 F i n d i n f o r m a t i o n t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s . 0 Become i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e t o p i c . 4 Make sense out o f t h e assignment. 2 Ask q u e s t i o n s . 1 F o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s on the handouts. 0 Remember what I saw a t the Richmond A r t s C e n t r e . 0 F i g u r e out why we had t o do t h i s p r o j e c t . What e l s e ? " G e t t i n g the work done i n a s h o r t t i m e . " 1 "To g i v e a tho r o u g h o p i n i o n . " 1 5) What I l i k e b e s t about the program was "Exposure t o a r t ." 7 "Exposure t o t h e f e e l i n g s o f a r t . l " H e a r i n g t h e a r t i s t . " 8 "Seeing t h e h i s t o r y o f Richmond."1 "The h i s t o r y museum." 1 6) What I l i k e d l e a s t about the program was "Answering q u e s t i o n s . " 3 "Taking n o t e s . " 1 "Not enough t i m e . " 4 "Drags i n c l a s s . " 1 "The s l i d e s . " 1 "Walking home." 1 "Drawing saw b l a d e s i n museum." 1 7) What I would l i k e t o change i n t h i s program " B i g g e r whole program." 1 "No t a k i n g o f n o t e s . " 1 " S h o r t e r q u e s t i o n a i r e so more time t i m e t o l o o k a t a r t works." 3 "More museum e x h i b i t s . " 1 "More i n f o r m a t i o n r e : S t e v e s t o n . " 1 "No h i s t o r y museum." 1 "More t i m e . " 5 quesl0 101. YOUR REACTION SCHOOL D GRADE 11/12 STUDENT RESPONSE P l e a s e t e l l us how you f e e l about t h e t h i n g s you d i d d u r i n g the u n i t MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE. There a re no r i g h t o r wrong answers. Your r e a c t i o n w i l l h e l p us t o r e v i s e the program. 1) I t h i n k t h i s program l i n e ) was . . . ( p l a c e a check . mark a l o n g the Easy t o u n d e r s t a n d 2 3 10 2 0 Hard t o un d e r s t a n d I n t e r e s t i n g 2 2 7 6 0 B o r i n g Important t o l e a r n 1 4 6 4 2 Not i m p o r t a n t Too l o n g 3 2 7 4 1 Too s h o r t Moving t o o f a s t 1 6 7 3 0 Moving t o o s l o w l y W o r t h w h i l e and v a l u a b l e 1 3 9 4 0 Not v e r y w o r t h w h i l e or v a l u a b l e What e l s e ? 2) W h i l e d o i n g t h i s program I, l i n e ) O f t e n d i s c u s s e d i t a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s Seldom f e l t c o n f u s e d O f t e n asked q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s I never knew b e f o r e Broadened my know- l e d g e about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 0 4 5 3 3 3 9 4 6 . ( p l a c e a check mark a l o n g the Seldom d i s c u s s e d i t a t home or w i t h f r i e n d s O f t e n f e l t c o n f u s e d 5 6 Seldom asked q u e s t i o n s Learned t h i n g s I a l r e a d y knew b e f o r e D i d not broaden my knowledge about a r t and my l o c a l c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s 102. What e l s e ? Student Responses: 3) I l e a r n e d most i n t h i s program by (Check as many as you wish) 5 T a k i n g n o t e s . 14 V i e w i n g the a r t show and the h i s t o r y museum. 9 L i s t e n i n g t o the t e a c h e r . 9 Watching the s l i d e s . 5 Having c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s . 3 Doing t h e s t u d y as a group. 5 Doing t h e w r i t t e n e x e r c i s e s and w r i t i n g answers t o q u e s t i o n s . 1 Having t h e t e a c h e r ask me q u e s t i o n s . 8 Working by m y s e l f . 6 L i s t e n i n g t o what o t h e r s t u d e n t s have t o say. 3 A s k i n g r e s o u r c e p e o p l e f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s . ( a r t i s t s , d ocent e t c . ) 0 Working i n the l i b r a r y l o o k i n g up f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . 3 B e i n g g i v e n t h e answers t o t h e q u e s t i o n s by the t e a c h e r . 8 E x p r e s s i n g my own o p i n i o n . 2 D i s a g r e e i n g w i t h the t e a c h e r or o t h e r s t u d e n t s . 5 F i n d i n g out answers f o r m y s e l f . 2 A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s . What e l s e ? 103. 4) I found i t hard i n t h i s u n i t t o (Check as many as you wish) 5 Understand t h e q u e s t i o n s . 4 Answer the a s s i g n e d q u e s t i o n s . 6 Watch the s l i d e s . 2 Work by m y s e l f on t h e a s s i g n m e n t s . 3 Work w i t h o t h e r s on the group p r o j e c t s . 3 F i n d i n f o r m a t i o n t o answer the q u e s t i o n s . 8 Become i n t e r e s t e d i n the t o p i c . 6 Make sense out o f the assignment. 3 Ask q u e s t i o n s . 4 F o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s on the handouts. 4 Remember what I saw a t t h e Richmond A r t s C e n t r e . 5 F i g u r e out why we had t o do t h i s p r o j e c t . What e l s e ? " U n d e r s t a n d i n g the symbols." 1 "Poor i n s t r u c t i o n s . " 1 "Hard t o use t h i s q u e s t i o n a i r e . " 2 5) What I l i k e b e s t about the program was.. "The h i s t o r y museum." 5 "Meeting t h e a r t i s t . " 2 "Seeing r e a l i s t i c a r t . " 2 "Seeing t h e clown s c u l p t u r e . " 3 " V i e w i n g t h e a r t g a l l e r y . " 4 " D i s s e c t i n g " p a i n t i n g s f o r meaning." 1 " A d e l i n e West's work." 1 6) What I l i k e d l e a s t about the program was " A b s t r a c t a r t . " 3 "The bus t r i p . " 1 "Not enough t i m e . " 1 " B o r i n g . " 1 104. "Having p i c t u r e s t a k e n . " 4 "Simple a r t , p r i c e d h i g h . " 1 "Answering q u e s t i o n s . " 3 "Want more h i s t o r y . " 1 "Poor a i r . " (smokers) 4 " N e g a t i v e mood o f s t u d e n t s . " 2 " Q u e s t i o n s hard t o f o l l o w . " 3 "Set-up o f museum." 2 7) What I would l i k e t o change i n t h i s program i s "More a r t and s c u l p t u r e . " 2 "More t i m e f o r a r t v i e w i n g . " 3 "Less work." 4 "Meet more a r t i s t s . " 1 "Hear a r t i s t , t h e n see works." 1 " P i c k b e t t e r l a i d out museum 4 "No smoking." 1 "No p i c t u r e t a k i n g . " 1 "More o i l s , r e a l i s t i c s t y l e . " 2 " L a r g e r museum." 1 q u e s l l / 1 2 105. APPENDIX II Samples of Correspondence

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 11 0
Spain 8 0
China 3 0
France 3 0
Brazil 3 0
Japan 3 0
Germany 2 2
Australia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 14 2
Figueira 8 0
Tokyo 3 0
Barueri 3 0
Buffalo 2 0
Brisbane 1 0
Los Angeles 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items