User:Emielheijnen/sandbox

Authentic arts education
Authentic art(s) education is a pedagogical approach that criticizes the isolated and anachronistic nature of traditional art education and its lack of connection to both contemporary professional art practice and to the needs of the student. Authentic art education is not a neutral concept. It advocates an art curriculum based on social-constructivist learning principles that aim for meaningful connections between both the needs and interests of the student and the professional world of art. This vision entails that the subject matter and pedagogy of art education are acknowledged as inherently dynamic, which challenges art educators to align existing curricula and pedagogies with present-day visual production and learning forms among young people and art professionals.

The origins of authentic art education: learning psychology
Authentic learning can be described as a social-constructivist learning approach, in which two perspectives from learning psychology are united: constructivism and situated learning. Constructivism assumes an intrinsic motivation of the student, who acquires knowledge by relating new information to prevailing cognitive configurations. The creation of knowledge is seen as a continuous process that involves actively researching and experiencing reality (Roelofs & Terwel, 1999). Situated learning suggests that learning is a social activity determined by the context in which learning takes place and the way in which groups of people share knowledge. Instead of acquiring abstract or context-free academic knowledge, students should develop knowledge that is linked to concrete applications, contexts and cultures (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Roelofs and Houtveen defined authentic learning as: "A process of learning in which the learner acquires meaningful insights for him/herself, primarily departing from intrinsic motivation and building on existing knowledge. Authentic learning takes place in relevant, practical and real-life contexts in which he or she plays an active, constructive and reflective role that includes communication and interaction with others." (1999, p. 240) Authentic learning results in personal constructions of knowledge by students, but the constructions and the processes that constitute them are always grounded in realistic socio-cultural activities (Franssen, Roelofs, & Terwel, 1995). Hence, the word ‘authentic’ in the phrase authentic art education does not refer to authentic forms of art but to authentic or realistic forms of learning. The romantic and traditional connotations associated with ‘authentic art’ are quite far removed from the real life, meaningful learning contexts that authentic art education strives for.

The origins of authentic art education: arts education
Authentic art education is also influenced by developments in the field of art education. It can be regarded as a critical response to a traditional approach in art education that is called the ‘school art style’. This phrase was coined by Efland (1976) and refers to a style of student art that is dominant in many primary schools and that is disconnected from developments in the professional arts and the student’s self-initiated art. School art has an expressive form and texture, is made with accessible, easily cleaned media and relatively free of cognitive strain (Efland, 1976). School art looks spontaneous and creative, but is in fact highly controlled, conservative and institutionalized because “it must fit the formula that it not look like it was produced through formula” (Anderson & Milbrandt, 1998). The teacher defines how the student’s art should look, excluding the influences of conceptual art and popular culture while rejecting all forms of copying and appropriation. To offer students a joyful break from more theoretical school subjects and to provide schools a ‘humanistic’ appearance are the most important functions of school art (Haanstra, 2001). Anderson and Milbrandt (1998) have argued that school art, in the curriculum’s periphery and detached from society, reflects the modern art era when art was perceived as a pleasurable aesthetic response to counterbalance the ‘important things in life’. Although modernist art is more than just aesthetic, school art pedagogy neglects the development of conceptual and cognitive skills and its traditional materials and expressive form bear a stylistic resemblance to modernist art. Modernist formalistic aesthetics, which are presented as universal and timeless, assume that modernistic art pedagogy is applicable in any context by ignoring art’s social and cultural dimensions (Freedman, 2003). Haanstra (2001) has identified the school art style as an international phenomenon that remains highly influential in the 21st century art curriculum, especially in primary education. Many people still see the art subjects in school as a place where students have the opportunity to take a temporary break from thinking (Lindström, 2009), maintaining its reputation as a pleasurable activity where students work with their hands rather than with their brain. Aspects of school art are also visible in secondary schools, although less prominent through the higher status of art subjects in the curriculum and the presence of specialized art teachers. Yet, Atkinson (2006) has stated that the pedagogical proceedings of such trained art teachers are often deeply rooted in modernist ideas like an emphasis on formalistic visual research as a method to amplify the student’s capacity for ‘self-expression’ and ‘originality’. In such curricula, traditional media and modernist art examples are dominant, and formal aesthetics and technical skills are emphasized as more important than the construction of meaning and creative research. Olivia Gude argues in that respect: “Modernist elements and principles, a menu of media, or lists of domains, modes, and rationales are neither sufficient nor necessary to inspire a quality art curriculum through which students come to see the arts as a significant contribution to their lives” (Gude, 2007, p. 6). Recent studies have shown that the contemporary art curriculum in many secondary schools is still based on such modernist principles and lacks connections with the visual culture and contemporary art that define the time in which teenagers grow up (Buschk hle, 2007; Downing, 2005; Duncum, 2007; Haanstra, 2010; Haanstra, Van Strien, & Wagenaar, 2008; Harland, 2008). The influence of modernist and ‘school art’ ideas on the contemporary art curriculum in schools therefore remains a reality for many students in schools today.

Principles of authentic art education
In 2001, Haanstra (2001) introduced authentic art education by applying the four main design principles that were developed by Roelofs and Houtveen (1999) to the field of art education:


 * Learning is aimed towards the culture of the student. It takes account of students’ prior knowledge, providing space for students’ opinions, interests and requirements.
 * Learning is relevant to situations outside the school: learning tasks are derived from activities performed by art professionals in society. A learn- ing task is considered authentic when its origin and solution are accept- ed in the professional domain in which art practitioners and experts are active.
 * Learning takes place in productive learning environments that are shaped by complex and complete task situations which give scope for students’ initiative and exploration via divergent assignments, global guidelines and global criteria. A productive learning environment is also aimed at the students’ metacognitive processes such as articulation, reflection and taking responsibility.
 * Communication and cooperation play an important role in the learning process. Group tasks, student consultation, discussion presentations and (peer) evaluations are regular features of the learning process.

Haanstra emphasized that he regarded the principles for authentic art education as a critical call for further theoretical and empirical research, rather than as a ready-made model for teachers (Haanstra, 2001). Studies among art students and their teachers in various contexts were needed to operationalize authentic art education as a more pragmatic pedagogical tool. Since then, aspects of authentic art education were used in the curricula of a few Dutch schools and have been studied in several small-scale studies in the Netherlands (Bremmer & Huisingh, 2009; Broekhuizen & Schönau, 2014; Groenendijk et al., 2012; Groenendijk, Huizenga, & Toorenaar, 2010; Haanstra, 2008; Haanstra et al., 2008; Heijnen, 2007; Hoekstra, 2009; Kampman, 2010). In the United States, Anderson and Milbrandt (2005) developed practical guidelines for what they call ‘authentic instruction in art’, which shows many similarities with Haanstra’s principles for authentic art education in relation to real world learning and the social construction of knowledge. Haanstra’s concept, which is based in learning psychology, is mainly aimed at pedagogical aspects, whereas Anderson and Milbrandt have developed additional guidelines for the subject matter of authentic art education. Anderson and Milbrandt propose that authentic instruction in art has to be primarily based on thematic inquiry, rather than on ‘modernistic’ esthetical principles, studio techniques or media: “If a historic function of art has been to tell our human stories, to help us know who we are and how and what we believe through aesthetic form then the organizing principles for authentic instruction in art are not form-centered but life-centered” (Anderson & Milbrandt, 1998, p. 17). Their teacher’s handbook Art for life recommends the organization of an authentic art curriculum around three central themes: a sense of self; a sense of place; and a sense of community. Anderson and Milbrandt acknowledge the intrinsic, aesthetic value of art, but its extrinsic value as a means that helps students to understand their place in the world, is emphasized as the primary purpose of art education (Anderson, 2003).