issue twentyseven

7/31/2019 Issue TwentySeven

1/4

9 August 2012 VADEA E-BULLETIN Vol. 27VADEA WORKING RESPONSE TO ACARAs

AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM: THE ARTS F-10 DRAFT

Overall comment:

ACARAs draft Arts Curriculum (July 2012) fails the equal to or better than test when compared withthe current NSW Visual Arts syllabuses and content K-10. The representation of Visual Arts, inparticular, requires a complete overhaul. While we note that terms practices and viewpoints have beenused in this draft their descriptions are far from acceptable. They are incomplete, incoherent andinappropriate. Band and content descriptions and elaborations and achievement standards in VisualArts fail to deal with how judgement and practical and critical reasoning is cultivated and agenciesbeyond the self are mobilised as students are knowingly initiated into the practices of artmaking andcritical and historical studies. Thus these descriptions and the achievement standards are unacceptable.

In sum, what has been proposed in this draft ACARA Arts curriculum lacks intellectual rigourand underplays any theoretical or practical knowing of consequence in Visual Arts. It naturalises

the learning of students to the extent that few expectations are made of them F-10 and assaults theprofessional integrity and subject knowledge of qualified teachers. The draft is far removed from acommitment to world class best practice.

WE REJECT ACARAs DRAFT CURRICULUM.

THE ARTS RATIONALE AND AIMS:

The rationale retains a preoccupation with students expression as a way to build community, which is at best onlya partial view of the purposes of the Arts. The importance of learning in the area is understated. The Arts have astrong aspirational impact on how Australia searches and builds its identity (at the level of individuals and groups)artistically, culturally, symbolically and economically in an increasingly globalised world. While this is suggested

tentatively the statement should be richer in its scope and more powerfully articulated.There is no sense that practical and critical reasoning or risk taking is valued in the production of novel,innovative and intelligible creative outcomes/objects or how judgements are afforded to creativeperformances. There is no sense of how a continual dialogue between the growing multi-modality of interactive

technology and the need for precisely differentiated artistic discipline informs and is informed by previous works.

ORGANISATION OF THE ARTS LEARNING AREA:

The organisation of the learning area is unacceptable as it stands. It suffers from two critical problems that areincoherent and which are magnified in the unsatisfactory write up about learning in Visual Arts (p. 113). Thisevidenced immediately in the diagrams, which incorrectly label making as learning in and responding as learningthrough (p. 6-7). This approach reifies false divisions about the nature of knowing that are untenable today.

Knowing that, knowing how, and knowing that one (how one values) are each important to making andinterpreting.

THE ARTS ACROSS FOUNDATION TO YEAR 10:

This section lacks any sense of how empirical research contributes to understanding what students are capable ofwhich should have an impact on the band descriptions, content descriptions and elaborations and thus, the settingof high expectations. There is no sense of how students critical and practical reasoning is constrained at differentages and undergoes significant developmental and iterative shifts which have an impact on the expectations thatmight be set by teachers and which have a bearing on what students can do as well as what they bring to theirlearning/what they think about and how they go on.

The above extracts are taken form VADEAs Working Response, which has been developed byVADEA Co-president Dr Kerry Thomas.

A more detailed version of the this working draft response can be downloaded at

http://vadea.org.au/wordpress/

Page 1


2/4

9 August 2012 VADEA E-BULLETIN Vol. 27

Page 2

RATIONALE

Better than previous versions but nowhere near good enough. It undermines the value the Visual Arts as a fieldof practice and body of knowledge (and as it currently exists in NSW syllabuses and education).The description retains a focus on the experiential at the expense of different foundational concepts (artist,artwork, world and audience) or theoretical frameworks that have an impact on how students understand, valueand proceed in their practices in artmaking and critical and historical studies of the Visual Arts. There is little ifany acknowledgement of the value of critical and historical understanding as part of knowing andpractice in the Visual Arts. Students dont just make Visual Arts works. Please get rid of this expression! It isalso inconsistent to see audiences being referred to here as viewers. Why has this occurred? The rationale issilent on the digital revolution at a time when this remarkable technological and social phenomenonshould not be ignored, including its effects in Visual Arts. There is nothing explicitly articulated aboutrelations between the Visual Arts and Design. This is a disturbing omission which should be addressed in termsof fields of practice and without a retreat to a design process as a default position.

LEARNING IN VISUAL ARTS

While it appears that ACARA has attempted a conciliatory gesture in using the terms practices and viewpointshow they are described/explained is currently totally unacceptable. As key components in the subject theyrequire far more thought and research on the part of the writers. For instance when practices are referred totheir focus is on an extremely limited view of making and forms (2D, 3D, 4D) with a genuflection to elements!Why? This is NOT the focus of practice. It also seems the writers lack direction in what to do with elements andtheir focus here carries an unnecessary weight. Reference to particular elements would be better placed aspossible examples within the content elaborations as a broader framework might include reference tocommunication visual language and reading the text. There is no articulation of what critical and historicalpractices mean for learning within the description of practice. This is a gross oversight. There should bereference to how judgements/critical reasoning is cultivated through critical study about art, artists, the world,artworks and audiences. There should be reference to how art, artists, audiences, artworks and views about theworld are (critically/contextually) located in time and place through historical study. Making should involvereference to how students practically reason. The description of viewpoints lacks any rigour and isunacceptable. There is current confusion in the write up about viewpoints being a kind of defactocontextual investigation. But this is wrong. Viewpoints are NOT only about artworks but matters ofsignificance that affect interpretations and the meanings of art, artists, the world, artworks and audiences.Viewpoints are NOT experiences (c/f glossary) but connected to different theoretical positions.

DRAFT BAND DESCRIPTIONS

ACARA does not seem to be sure of the purpose of the band descriptions. The introduction (p. 8) states theyprovide an overview of content and emphasise connections between making and responding. The questionnaireis interested in scope. Band descriptions across subjects vary greatly from a process approach to a moreconceptually differentiated approach but there are few if any reasons why this should be the case otherthan the best guess of writers. The band descriptions lack an underpinning conceptual structure that could beaddressed by each subject. This needs urgent attention. Whatever the case, ACARA and the writers donot appear to have taken into account research available on students conceptual development in theVisual Arts and thus the band descriptions read as nothing other than a common sense guess. While

they are a little better than they were previously they are still seriously lacking. They do not cover the breadth oflearning at any level. As importantly, they do not offer a sense of depth of learning or how learning isconstrained at different ages (this is not a negative). At times they are simply wrong.

The above extracts are taken form VADEAs Working Response, which has been developed byVADEA Co-president Dr Kerry Thomas.

A more detailed version of the this working draft response can be downloaded at


VADEA WORKING RESPONSE TO ACARAs DRAFT AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM: THE ARTS

VISUAL ARTS COMPONENT


3/4


Page 3

DRAFT CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS and ELABORATIONS

The draft content descriptions (in each band) appear laboured/tedious/self-centered/cumbersome/ambiguous.At times, they emphasise subject matter and at others, processes and skills but there is little logical reason as towhy this is the case. At times they seem so ambiguous it is not clear what is meant, for example:

6.4 Makes Visual Arts works as representations of self and others across places, times, cultures and

societies (p. 125)8.4 Makes Visual Arts works that demonstrate conceptual representation of the world as a source of

ideas (p. 129)10.6 Explore other artforms and learning areas to develop ideas and issues to explore symbol and

representation (p. 134)

At other times, the reason for the inclusion is questioned e.g. 2.1 Look at and imagine images, objects andpatterns (p.116). Why this important content? Getting something into place appears to have taken precedenceover the quality of what has been included. Put simply, these content descriptions do not describe theknowledge, skills and processes that teachers are expected to teach and students are expected to learn (p. 8).They lack coherence, completeness and are repeatedly inappropriate and should be rejected as totallyunsatisfactory.

The implications for the draft content elaborations are obvious. Current, these read as nothing short of ahotchpotch of activities which have little relevance to the scope, depth and expectations for teachingand learning and students practical and conceptual development, for example;

2.1 (content elaboration) playing with combining images, shapes, patterns and spaces (p. 116)10.3 (content elaboration) deepening aesthetic and conceptual strengths and experimenting with past

and contemporary technologies during imaginative problem solving (p. 133)

While semantically differentiated there is no sense of how learning is conceptually/practically or actuallydifferentiated from F-10. In making, the content descriptions are unhelpfully and loosely underpinned by thecreative process driver and a retreat to experience F-10, which is unacceptable (p. 6). This process approachfails to provide a legitimate basis from which to develop content descriptions and elaborations.

ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

The achievement standards currently FAIL to explain in understandable language what students should

know and be able to do by the end of each band. They are inappropriately pitched and lack conceptualand material rigour. They are demeaning, an outright embarrassment and should be rejected.

They would do little to encourage high expectations of students and their teachers. The achievement standardsbeg the question: Why wouldnt F-6 teachers work with content descriptions currently designed for years 9-10?

In sum, band and content descriptions and elaborations and achievement standards fail to deal with howjudgement and practical and critical reasoning is cultivated and agencies beyond the self are mobilised asstudents are knowingly initiated into the practices of artmaking and critical and historical studies. They arerejected.

The above extracts are taken form VADEAs Working Response, which has been developed byVADEA Co-president Dr Kerry Thomas.A more detailed version of the this working draft response can be downloaded at


VADEA WORKING RESPONSE TO ACARAs DRAFT AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM: THE ARTS

VISUAL ARTS COMPONENT


4/4

VADEA IS HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE, FOR THE FIRST TIME,UP TO 4 VADEA NSW PROFESSIONAL LEARNING GRANTS.

VADEA is committed to investing in the future of NSW Visual Arts Education.

We are keen to support art and design educators in initiatives and projects that will contribute to thefield. Some examples include; artist in residency programs, in school exhibitions, rural andmetropolitan opportunities, young teacher mentoring and collaborative projects.

Imagine the possibilities- you might join forces with other schools, local galleries or tertiary institutionsin your area to run a collaborative project.

Another example is the 100 Mile Art Project (presented at the2012 VADEA conference) where schools from the ParramattaDiocese collaborated with local galleries, architects andbusinesses to map and transform public spaces in their local area.You can now make these types of projects a reality in your schoolor local area with the VADEA professional learning grants.

The information, application form and terms of conditions can be downloaded in one PDF from

http://vadea.org.au

APPLICATIONS CLOSE SEPTEMBER 30th 2012.We look forward to hearing from you.

An example of this type of collaboration was the Cultivating Urban

Ecologies Project (presented at the 2012 VADEA conference)where five schools across Sydney worked collaboratively with theCollege of Fine Arts (COFA, UNSW) on an innovative researchproject that engaged students in sustainable public art projects intheir local community. The project aimed to research thecontribution of Visual Art teachers and their students in transforminglocal public spaces through small-scale ecological art projects.


Page 4

TwitterVADEA_NSWFacebook*Facebook.com/VADEANSW*To join our Facebook group 2012 membersshould private message

facebook.com/VADEANSW with their VADEAmember number.

Websitehttp://vadea.org.au

VADEA GRANTS

Student work sample: Ecology Boxes

issue twentyseven

Documents