VTS Week 6
Lesson 1 VS Lesson 2
In brief, as I review lesson one and then compare it to lesson two, I find that from the start I was more relaxed and more playful in lesson two. It has been such a long time since I have had to follow any sort of prescribed curriculum or technique that I got a little stiff and formal at first.
Over all I feel both lessons went very well. I found lesson two was faster paced and there was a lot more input. I attribute this to several factors.
First, I had my whole class present, twelve kids vs seven made a huge difference in how long and how far the dialogue went. My first lesson was just under thirteen minutes while my second lesson was almost thirty five minutes.
Second, I was more relaxed as I noted above. In being a little more myself I know my students were also more relaxed and engaged.
Third, my students knew what to expect and did not require much prompting.
I had noted in my first lesson that after watching the video, I had missed linking opportunities. I feel I did a better job with that this time around, and the kids were linking on their own as well. However, as I watch (and am in the lengthy process of transposing) I am noticing that my students, in the process of liking and extending meaning, were building off what others saw to explain why they thought something. As their teacher, I did not continuously go back and ask them “what do you see that makes you say this” because there seemed to be a tacit implication with in the statements already. I am wondering if this is a violation of VTS protocol? Does anyone have any thought on this?
As I began watching my second video, my first response to this was “I stink at this” As I continued to watch though, I believe some of this process happened with out my stopping to actually ask the question because the bigger conversation wove this element into it. Of course, maybe I am just hoping this is the case. Mary, Ill look to you on that one!
I believe this happens with my student though because we do have such a deep and long term relationship and relating is never an issue on any level. Eisner makes reference to this when it is stated “Schools, I believe, like the larger society of which they are a part, function as cultures in both senses of the term.” Eisner. (referring to anthropological and biological)
My school is indeed its own culture and fosters a deep sense of community where learning and exploring an idea is the norm. It is a shared way of life and co-existence with in the context of school. My students are uninhibited by the constraints of typical public school culture. I am blessed as a teacher (and they as students) to have such an environment.
I am looking forward to see where my students take the next few lessons. Both lessons they listed what they saw. Lots of conditional language and assertions with evidence (well.. over all...) My students pondered deeply what the artist was up to this time around, making speculations about what the artist might be trying to convey. What I found particularly interesting, is they were so involved with the composition, setting, repetition of figures, representation of time, etc.... No one talked about the mood of the painting. In thinking about the VTS I did (not one of the assigned lessons) with “The Scream” Students were drawn more to mood. In the realistic painting, they did not address it at all really. I am very curious about this. So looking forward to the next lesson (as are they!)
I think your speculations about why Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 were different were insightful. As your level of comfort with the VTS questions increases, it will flow much more easily and the kids are clearly responding to that already. Even though you have established a wonderfully supportive and comfortable relationship with these students, the method is new. It seems that they are quickly "getting with the program" though, and it is becoming more comfortable as their trusted teacher implements it.
ReplyDeleteDoubling the number of students in your group also doubles unique sets of eyes. I am not surprised that the discussion was longer and richer. (Twelve students? Is that Heaven or Michigan? I know, bad reference to "Field of Dreams.")
WONDERFUL that kids are linking their responses and ideas to those of others for you. I think I mentioned to the group that met here in Columbia on September 24 that as your students gain VTS experience, the method actually becomes easier for you because they begin answering question 2 without prompting. Don't forget, though, to insert it when it isn' offered, just to keep the collaborative aspect of VTS visible (and to remind them to do it for you once again!) Another benefit of students doing the linking for you is that they are learning authentically the value of group process as they develop respect and appreciation for the ideas of others.
YEAH for the students' use of conditional language! It sounds like they are a group that is comfortable with ambiguity in art. I strongly suspect that the imagery that has populated your teaching with these students over the years has instilled this in them. I think it is valuable, too, that the VTS images you have shared with them so far are somewhat different and expanding their viewing experience. Works that are more representational require that they look a little closer for the kinds of expressive qualities, including mood, that is more immediate in works like "The Scream." I think their focus on "composition, setting, repetition of figures, representation of time, etc" could be because they are reaching for the "toe holds" that they are used to seeking when looking at more expressive work. It would be interesting to place a "hard copy" of this image in your classroom and see if, in their own time, they revisit this image and the theme of mood comes up. (Oh, to be a fly on the wall!)
As always, great to read your comments and I look forward to your second video. Keep up the great work!